(navigation image)
Home American Libraries | Canadian Libraries | Universal Library | Community Texts | Project Gutenberg | Children's Library | Biodiversity Heritage Library | Additional Collections
Search: Advanced Search
Anonymous User (login or join us)
Upload
See other formats

Full text of "Agricultural land uses, livestock and soils of the Canadian Great Lakes Basin (south of latitude 45 N) : a report of the activities of the Engineering Research Service and the Soil Research Institute as part of Agriculture Canada's contribution to the imp"

AGRICULTURAL LAND USES, LIVESTOCK AND SOILS 

OF 

THE CANADIAN GREAT LAKES BASIN 
(south of latitude 45° N) 



A REPORT OF THE ACTIVITIES OF 
THE ENGINEERING RESEARCH SERVICE AND THE SOIL RESEARCH INSTITUTE 
AS PART OF AGRICULTURE CANADA'S CONTRIBUTION TO THE IMPLEMENTATION 
OF THE GREAT LAKES WATER QUALITY AGREEMENT 
1973 - 1974 



prepared, in part, for 



TASK C (CANADIAN SECTIUv) INTERNATIONAL REFERENCE GROUP ON GREAT 
LAKES POLLUTION FROM LAND USE ACTIVITIES 

JUNE 1974 



PARTICIPANTS 

D. R. Coote 

Engineering Research Service, Ottawa 

E. M. MacDonald 

Soil Research Institute, Ottawa 

G. J. Wall 

Soil Research Institute 

Ontario Soil Survey Unit, Guelph 



SUPPORT STAFF 

E. M. Cole 

J. M. Cossette 
R. J. Dewe 
D. G. Harder 

F. J. MacCallum 
J. D. McRae 

M. D. Rigby 
J. C. Slot 
L. van Vliet 



(ii) 



ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS : The following list includes others who have 

contributed materially to this report, and for whose assistance 
the participants wish to express their sincere appreciation: 
(Contributions within this report are identified by footnotes) 

Dr. C. Acton 

Agriculture Canada, 

Ontario Soil Survey Unit, Guelph 



Dr. T. Dickinson 
School of Engineering, 
University of Guelph, Guelph 

Support Staff: A. Scott 



Dr. M. Kaplansky 

Data Processing Division, 

Agriculture Canada, Ottawa 



Mr. L. Philpotts 
Economics Branch, 
Agriculture Canada, Ottawa 

Support Staff: R. LaFrance 



Mr. R.A. Ryerson 

Canada Centre for Remote Sensing, 

Energy, Mines and Resources, Ottawa 



In addition to those individuals mentioned above, 
the participants wish to express their appreciation to the Staff 
of the Soil Research Institute, including the Cartography Unit, 
and the Engineering Research Service for their advice and 
assistance. 

The projects described in this report were made 
possible by funds supplied directly to the Research Branch, 
Agriculture Canada, by the Treasury Board for implementation of 
the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement. 



(iii) 



TABLE OF CONTENTS 



Participants and support staff ii 

Acknowledgements iii 

Table of contents iv 

List of tables vi 

List of figures vii 

INTRODUCTION ix 

SUMMARY xii 

PREPARATION OF BACKGROUND INFORMATION FOR AGRICULTURAL 

REGION IDENTIFICATION AND WATERSHED SELECTION 1 

Introduction and discussion 2 

1. Climatic Zones 5 

2. Soil Potential for Pollutant Transfer to Water Systems 7 

3. Agricultural Land Use Inventory 19 

Introduction 19 

Methodology 20 

Agricultural Characteristics Maps 24 

SOIL EROSION AND FLUVIAL SEDIMENTATION IN SOUTHERN ONTARIO .... 48 

Introduction 49 

Assessment of Fluvial Sediment Data 56 

Summary 57 

Acknowledgements 58 

References Cited 58 

LIVESTOCK FEEDLOT AND MANURE STORAGE RUNOFF STUDY 
(Under separate cover) 



(iv) 



TABLE OF CONTENTS 
(continued) 



A SELECTIVE INVENTORY OF LIVESTOCK OPERATIONS IN SOUTHERN 

ONTARIO 59 

Introduction 60 

Project Objectives 61 

Methodology ••••••••••• • 62 

Design 62 

Implementation 64 

Discussion 67 

Results 67 

Analysis of the Project 84 

References Cited 87 

APPENDICES 89 

Appendix I. Agricultural Regions and Representative 

Sub-Basins 90 

Appendix IV. Airphoto Livestock Inventory Material 112 

IV. 1 Photograph Procurement •••• 113 

IV. 2 Project Information Sheet 115 

IV. 3 Measurement Charts for Livestock 

Enumeration 116 

IV. 4 Ground Checks 121 

IV. 5 Computer Print Out for Airphoto Livestock 
Inventory of Southern Ontario, 1973-74 

(Sample Only) 131 

(COMPLETE PRINTOUT UNDER SEPARATE COVER) 



(v) 



LIST OF TABLES 



Table 1.1 Summary of Criteria for Grouping of Soils by Potential 

for Pollutant Transfer to Water Systems 11 

Table 1.2 Tentative Groupings of some Southern Ontario Soils 13 

Table 1.3 Annual Manure Nitrogen and Phosphorus Production 21 

Table 1.4 Recommended Fertilizer Application Rates 22 

Table II. 1 Streams, Basin Size and Average Annual Suspended 

Sediment Loads from Water Survey of Canada Data 56 

Table IV. 1 Interpreted livestock operations, Watershed GA-2 79 

Table IV. 2 Interpreted livestock operations, Watershed GA-4 80 

Table IV. 3 Characteristics of livestock operations, Watershed GA-2 . 82 

Table IV. 4 Characteristics of livestock operations, Watershed GA-4 . 83 

Appendix IV-3 116 

Table 1 Measurement Table - Dairy Cattle 117 

Table 2 Measurement Table - Steers 118 

Table 3 Measurement Table - Hogs 119 

Table 4 Measurement Table - Poultry 120 

Appendix IV-4 121 

Table 1 Total livestock in Southern, Western and Central Ontario 

for years 1971, 1972 and 1973 124 



(vi) 



LIST OF FIGURES AND MAPS 
continued 



Figure II. 1 Average annual value, Rainfall Factor ! R' . 51 

Figure II. 2 Nomograph for computation of 'K' factors 53 

Figure II. 3 Soil erodibility, 'K 1 factors 54 

Figure II. 4 Predicted sheet erosion losses from agricultural 

land in Southern Ontario 55 

Map IV-1 Southern Ontario - Livestock Operation Inventory 1973-74 ... 63 

Map IV-2 Southern Ontario - Large Dairy Operations 68 

Map IV-3 Southern Ontario - Large Cattle Feedlot and 

Beef Raising Operations 69 

Map IV-4 Southern Ontario - Large Hog Operations 70 

Map IV-5 Southern Ontario - Large Poultry Operations 71 

Map IV-6 Watersheds GA-2 and GA-4 - Dairy Operations 74 

Map IV-7 Watersheds GA-2 and GA-4 - Feedlots and Beef Operations .... 75 

Map IV-8 Watersheds GA-2 and GA-4 - Pig Operations 76 

Map IV-9 Watersheds GA-2 and GA-4 - Poultry Operations 7" 

Appendix IV-1 

Map 1 Southern Ontario Livestock Operation Inventory 1973-74 114 



(viii) 



INTRODUCTION 



The Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement, 1972, was based on the findings 
and recommendations of an International Joint Commission (I.J.C.) study of the 
pollution problems in Lake Erie, Lake Ontario and the international section of 
the St. Lawrence River. Two articles of this Agreement have particular 
significance for agriculture and agricultural research: 

- Article VI requested that the International Joint Commission inquire into 
and report on "pollution of the boundary waters of the Great Lakes System 
from agricultural, forestry and other land use activities, in accordance 
with the terms of reference attached to this agreement". 

- Article V was directed primarily to the regulatory agencies and requested 
the development and implementation of programmes and other measures directed 
towards achievement of the established water quality objectives. One 
section of this article dealt with the abatement and control of pollution 
from agricultural, forestry and other land use activities, and included: 

- measures for the control of pest control products to limit inputs 
into the Great Lakes System. 

- measures for abatement and control of pollution from animal 
husbandry operations. 

- measures governing the disposal of solid wastes. 

- measures to abate and control inputs of nutrients and sediments. 

The International Joint Commission (I.J.C.) established the International 
Reference Group on Great Lakes Pollution from Land Use Activities to plan and 
implement the study requested by Article VI. Implementation of Article V, 
federally, is the responsibility of the Interdepartmental Committee on Water 
Programmes (I.C.W. ), Central Sub-Committee. 



(ix) 



Agriculture Canada (CD. A.) is participating in both programmes. In 
December 1972, with I.C.W. funds, a CD. A. Task Force for Implementation of 
the Great Lakes Water Quality Programme was established with the directive 
to survey published material on agricultural pollution of the Lower Great 
Lakes, to survey ongoing work on this problem, to determine limitations in 
knowledge and deficiencies in existing research programmes, and finally, to 
develop plans fo_- research programmes to fill in any deficiencies. A report 
was prepared by the Task Force as a working document, and considered two 
major areas of concern: 

I Pesticides 
II Fertilizer Nutrients and Animal Husbandry Operations. 

In the 73/74 fiscal year, Engineering Research Service and the Soil 
Research Institute were involved in several I.C.W. supported programmes. 
These were carried out as a contribution to the I.C.W. implementation of 
Article V of the Agreement; as a contribution to the planning of the I.J.C 
programme; or as an implementation of those recommendations of Section II of 
the Task Force Report that would contribute to either of these programmes. 

Recommendation 2, Section II of the Task Force Report, proposed monitor- 
ing of agricultural watersheds for contributions of nutrients and other 
pollutants to water, with selection of sites based on soil, land use and 
hydrological data. In addition, it was recommended that the proposed programme 
should be integrated with other larger watershed studies through participation 
of the CD. A. Research Branch in the proposed watershed studies (Task C) of the 
International Reference Group on Great Lakes Pollution from Land Use Activities. 
Agriculture Canada has participated in the development of the Task C watershed 
study plan through representation on the Task C Technical Committee and its 
Agricultural Sub-Committee. In order to complete the study plan and to select 
sites according to prescribed criteria, the following programmes were carried 
out and are included in this report: 

1) Land Use Inventory 

2) Soil potential for pollutant transfer 

3) Soil erosion 

4) Background data collection for the Agricultural Sub-Committee 



(x) 



The soil erosion study also followed Recommendation 5 of the Task Force Report. 
This called for mapping of the susceptability to erosion of the soils of 
Southern Ontario, and characterization of the erodibility of these soils. 

A programme was commenced as per Recommendation 4 of the Task Force Report 
to study the direct runoff of pollutants from manure storage areas and to 
maintain surveillance of runoff from open feedlots. The recommendation stressed 
the need for this data to enable the development of design requirements for 
control facilities. This study will contribute to the I.C.W. programme. 

In support of Article V, the need for a livestock operations inventory was 
established by the Department of the Environment (D.O.E.). This was carried out 
as a joint D. O.E./C.D.A. contribution to implementation of the Great Lakes 
Quality Agreement. 



Cxi) 



SUMMARY 



I. The Agricultural Sub-Committee of the International Reference Group on 
Great Lakes Pollution from Land Use Activities - Task C Technical Committee, 
has required certain information on which to base its collective selection of 
sites for Preliminary Agricultural Watershed Studies. Some of this informa- 
tion was provided by the following projects: 

Classification and mapping of the soils according to "Soil 
Potential for Pollutant Transfer"» This is an estimate of the 
influence of soil physical characteristics on the surface hydro- 
logy of different soil landscapes. Soil information including 
texture, depth, drainage class and slope have been used to group 
many of the soils of Southern Ontario into 5 major groups and 14 
subgroups. The subgroups were mapped in detail at 1:250,000, and 
generalized for presentation at 1:500,000 and 1:1,000,000. 

An Agricultural Land Use Inventory; This is a cartographic 
presentation of selected data from the 1971 Agricultural Census, 
Statistics Canada. Data for livestock, crops and fertilizer and 
manure nutrients per unit area are presented on maps of 1:500,000 
or 1:1,000,000 by photographically reducing maps produced by the 
computer at a scale of 1:250,000. The smallest unit of area is 
that of an "Enumeration Area" (Census). Some of these are subject 
to editing to maintain confidentiality of individual farmers. 
Symbols are printed which represent seven levels of density 
within the range encountered for each characteristic. 

In addition to the material provided by these projects, data obtained from 
activity II below, and data on climatic variability were utilized to identify 
distinct "agricultural regions" within the Lower Great Lakes Basin. Twenty- 
one agricultural regions were identified, i.e., regions defined as an area of 
similar soils, in the same climatic zone, upon which an identifiable agricul- 
tural land use or combination of land uses exists. Representative watersheds 
for each of these regions were selected for consideration by the Agricultural 
Sub-Committee. Extensive use was made of aerial photographs and soil and 
topographic maps to select and characterize these small watersheds. Individual 
drainage, land use, soil and livestock maps were prepared for each small watershed. 
(Engineering Research Service and Soil Research Institute). 

' (xii) 



II. Soil erosion within the Canadian Great Lakes Basin was determined by 
application of a soil loss prediction equation. The soil loss equation 
employed provides estimates of average annual rainfall induced erosion losses 
by consideration of soil erodibility, land use, rainfall and slope parameters. 
A map has been prepared (scale 1:500,000) that indicates the areal distribution 
of predicted soil erosion losses from the predominant soil and agricultural 
regions of Southern Ontario. The predicted soil erosion losses ranged from 

to 15 tons/ac./yr. Watersheds located in regions of highest soil erosion 
loss from agricultural land included the Thames, Sydenham and Humber Rivers 
(Soil Research Institute, Ontario Soil Survey Unit). 

III. Two beef feedlots and two manure storage areas have been instrumented 
so that a record of rainfall and runoff can be obtained. Samples are 
collected and analysed for nutrients and solids. The preliminary data reveal 
a wide range in all values obtained. The study has been underway for approxi- 
mately 5 months, and is continuing. A progress report is available under 
separate cover. (Engineering Research Service). 

IV. An inventory of large livestock operations in Southern Ontario has been 
carried out utilizing aerial photographs. Eleven categories of livestock have 
been recognized. Farms with less than 75 dairy cows, 150 beef steers or 300 
hogs, and other farms smaller than a comparable size have been omitted. More 
than 4,500 farms have been recorded, and an area of over 25,000 square miles 
has been surveyed during this inventory. Farm size, distance to roads, streams 
and houses, and major and minor watersheds in which each is located have been 
recorded for all large farms identified. (Engineering Research Service and 
Soil Research Institute). 



(xiii) 



PREPARATION OF BACKGROUND INFORMATION FOR 



AGRICULTURAL REGION IDENTIFICATION AND WATERSHED SELECTION 



D. R. Coote 

Engineering Research Service 

E. M. MacDonald 

Soil Research Institute 



Soil Series Groupings: Dr. C. Acton, Soil Survey Unit, C.D.A. 
Guelph 

Mapping: J. M. Cossette and J. D. McRae, Soil Research Institute 

Photo reductions: Photo Mechanical Unit, S.R.I. Cartography 

Computer mapping: Dr. M. Kaplansky, Data Processing, C.D.A. , Ottawa 



PREPARATION OF BACKGROUND INFORMATION FOR 
AGRICULTURAL REGION IDENTIFICATION AND WATERSHED SELECTION 



INTRODUCTION AND DISCUSSION 

An Agricultural Sub-Committee holds responsibility for the prepara- 
tion and implementation of a study plan to integrate the requirements of the 
agricultural watershed study with those of the remainder of the International 
Reference Group on Great Lakes Pollution from Land Use Activities - Task C 
studies. 

The approach taken by the Agricultural Sub-Committee was to identify 
agricultural regions within which representative agricultural watersheds or 
sub-watersheds would be chosen. This approach was intended to allow measurements 
to be made of water quality and quantity parameters in streams which were known 
to have flowed from specific types of agricultural land uses and facilities. 
The following factors were identified by the Sub-Committee for consideration, 
and data was obtained and prepared for presentation to the Committee: 

1. Land Use - (1) crops 

(2) livestock 

2. Soils - differences likely to be relevant to 

agricultural pollution 

3. Climate - significant variability within the Canadian 

Great Lakes Basin 

The preparation of data for watershed selection was aimed at enabling 
the Agricultural Sub-Committee to identify areas within which the agricultural 
land use pattern is reasonably uniform. 

Mapping of the soil potential for pollutant transfer permitted the primary 
division of the Basin into five major soil groups, and approximately four additional 
inseparable complexes. Climatic variability defined broad differences in cropping 
practices across the Basin. However, inspection of crop distribution maps indicated 



that soils grouped together and which fall in a similar climatic zone also can 
vary widely in the type and density of crops grown in two or more areas. Thus 
a further division of the Basin was made from inspection of crop distribution 
maps superimposed on the soil maps. Livestock distribution differences are 
controlled by economic factors and crop distribution so that a degree of inter- 
dependence exists between the livestock and crop distributions. Livestock 
distribution was therefore considered to be of secondary significance. The 
inspection of all maps, simultaneously, permitted the general definition of 
agricultural areas. Additional segregation of areas was achieved by consider- 
ing the production of specialized crops such as tobacco, fruits and vegetables. 
The 21 main agricultural regions are shown on Map 1.1. 

The preparation of maps showing the soil groupings and complexes 
enabled estimates to be made of the area of each, so that a consideration of 
the pollution potential was coupled with a knowledge of the extent of coverage 
of the Basin of each soil group. Existing stream sediment load data also 
indicated regions in which studies of high and low sediment loads would be most 
valuable. A relative ranking of area priorities was therefore possible. 

An "agricultural area" sometimes consisted of a number of small, 
scattered areas in which similarities existed which allowed the formation of a 
single unit for representation purposes. It was usually possible to single out 
the "average" or the largest of these scattered areas as a starting point for a 
search of watersheds. If no watershed was found, the search moved to the next 
"average" or the next largest area. 

River or stream patterns could be seen on 1:250,000 topographic maps 
by overlaying the outlines of the soil groupings. This done, the river was 
studied on the 1:50,000 topographic maps for suitable sites. At this point, 
reference was made to the locations of existing water flow measuring stations 
of both the Ontario Ministry of the Environment and the Federal Inland Waters 
Directorate. Any site on which an existing or past gauging station was located 
was given precedence. The watershed areas above each possible gauging site were 
inspected for urban areas, new highway construction, large highways, etc., and 
rejected if excessive non-agricultural activities were found. 

Finally, air photos were used where ever possible to obtain an up-to- 
date land use inventory of the possible study watershed, and crop and livestock 
production noted. Where suitable air, photos were not available, crop informa- 
tion was obtained from the Canada Land Inventory maps at 1:50,000 scale. A 
final selection of alternative sites was made by the entire Agricultural Sub- 
Committee. 

A brief description of each of the regions shown on Map 1.1, with 
the locations of the representative sub-basins, where applicable, can be 
found in Appendix I, starting on page 90. 



LAKE 
HURON 






PAGE 4 




20 







14 



8* 



17 



%\ 



i 
i 



5* 



.s^'* 



a 



% 



ll 



^ 



■) - >, 



V* 






O. 



16 





O 



N 1 



A R 



1 O 



INTERNATIONAL REFERENCE GROUP ON 

GREAT LAKES POLLUTION FROM 

LAND USE ACTIVITIES 

MAP 1-1 

Task C Technical Committee 

Agricultural Sub-Committee 



13 



15 



AGRICULTURAL AREAS and 

REPRESENTATIVE WATERSHEDS 



13 



*! ! 



13 



R \ I 



Soil Research Institute and Engineering Research Service 
Agriculture Canada 
Ottawa , 1974 



Photographic redueli 

Onowo l°7-i 

Scalo - 1 1.000.000 



by SRI Cartography 



CLIMATIC ZONES 



Identification of climatic zones with significant differences in 
relation to the pollution potential of an agricultural region was required 
for selection of unique agricultural regions. 

As a first approach, the area of the Canadian Lower Great Lakes Basin 
was divided into 10 climatic zones. These zones were grouped on several 
parameters including rainfall, length of frost-free period, growing degree- 
days, etc. They were as follows: 

1. Leamington 

2. Kent and Essex 

3. Lake Erie counties 

4. South Slopes 

5. Huron Slopes 

6. Dundalk Uplands 

7. Niagara Fruit Belt 

8. Lake Ontario Shore 

9. Simcoe and Kawartha Lakes 

10. Prince Edward County 

Climatic information was obtained from the Canada Land Inventory, 
Climates of Canada for Agriculture, C.L.I. Report No. 3, 1966, and the 
Climate of Southern Ontario, Brown, McKay and Chapman, D.O.T., 
Climatological Study #5, 1968. 

Subsequently, it was concluded that this number of climatic zones lacked 
sufficient individual significance for this study*. 

A broader distinction was made between the climatic zones of the region. 
Recognition was given to the higher snowfall, rainfall and runoff, and lower degree- 
days and shorter growing season of the central uplands (Climate 2). This was in 
contrast with the climate of the rest of the region which is lower in elevation, 
closer to, and more influenced by, the Great Lakes (Climate 1). A distinction was 
also made between that part of climatic zone 1 which was east compared to that 
which was west of the Niagara Escarpment. (See Map 1.2). 

*Personal cummunication , D. M. Brown, Department of Land Resource Science, 
University of Guelph. 



SOIL POTENTIAL FOR POLLUTANT TRANSFER TO WATER SYSTEMS 



The selection of sites for watershed studies will inevitably be 
based on a number of criteria depending on the objectives of the watershed 
study. In the case of the Agricultural Watershed Study, which is a part of 
the Pilot Watershed Study of the International Reference Group on Great Lakes 
Pollution from Land Use Activities, the selection of a set of watersheds was 
based on their overall representativeness of the agricultural pollution 
potential of the Canadian Lower Great Lakes Basin. 

One of the primary concerns with agricultural sources of pollutants 
are the non-point sources such as land drainage (surface runoff, subsurface 
drain and ditch effluent) and deep percolation contributions to ground water. 
The factors which affect the potential of an agricultural area to contribute 
to these non-point sources include the soil texture, soil drainage characteristics, 
soil depth, topography, climate, crop production, livestock production and the 
management of cropping and livestock activities. 

This report describes the approach which was taken in order to 
simplify the presentation of the soil-related pollution potential characteris- 
tics of an agricultural area. 

In the following interpretive system, many Southern Ontario soils 
have been grouped into categories on the basis of their potential for pollutant 
transfer to either surface waters (streams, small lakes or ponds) or ground 
water. Two basically different pollutants are inferred, namely, (1) sediment 
arising from erosion of lands under agricultural use, being transferred by 
surface runoff, and (2) chemicals arising from the use of fertilizers, herbicides, 
pesticides, or barnyard manure in agricultural practices, which involve either 
surface transfer or move through the ground water system. 



There are five major groups specified, each group having certain 
unique properties which affect differently the potential of those soils to 
contribute pollutants to surface waters or ground water. The relative ranking 
of the groups has no particular significance with regard to the severity of 
potential for pollutant transfer. For example, the soils in Group 1 present 
a greater potential hazard to pollutant transfer than the soils in Group 4, 
but no greater than Group 3. 

1. High potential to contribute to surface water; low to ground water. 

2. Moderate potential to contribute to surface water and ground water. 

3. Low potential to contribute to surface water and high potential to 
contribute to ground water. 

4. Low potential to contribute to either surface or ground water. 

5. High potential to contribute to both surf ace and ground water. 

Soil factors which were considered to result in a soil type being 
placed into one of the five groups listed above include some of the following 
(sub-groups based on textural class; a-fine, b-medium, c-coarse): 

l.a) Soils with high percentages of clay size particles throughout the 

profile which have low infiltration rates, but which are classified 
as either well or imperfectly drained. This implies a high degree of 
surface runoff, and therefore a potential to contribute soluble and 
particulate forms of pollutants to surface drains, ditches and streams. 

b) Medium textured soils which have low infiltration rates, but which are 
well or imperfectly drained will also have a potential for surface water 
pollution if pollutant material is available in the soil environment for 
transport by surface runoff. 

Medium textured soils which have moderate infiltration rates may occur 
on slopes exceeding 6%. Soils of this type which are well drained are 
likely to experience runoff as well as infiltration. A potential for 
contributions of pollutants, including sediments, to surface water 
systems will exist with these soils. 

c) Coarse textured (sandy) soils which have fine textured layers at a 
shallow depth, which are on sloping topography (slopes exceeding 37.), 
and which are also well or imperfectly drained; such soils create a 
condition where lateral flow of water over the fine textured layer may 



occur. This lateral movement of water will usually re-appear at the 
surface at a point lower down the slope, or where the coarse textured 
soil becomes more shallow over the fine textured material. The lateral 
movement of water out of the soil is also implied by the well or 
imperfectly drained classification of these soils. Direct horizontal 
drainage into drains or ditches may also occur. 

d) Organic soils which have been artificially drained for crop production 
will often have water pumped from a ditch network into a nearby stream 
or lake. This water may contain dissolved pollutant materials. These 
soils must be considered as potential surface water pollution sources 
because of these artificial drainage practices. 

e) Certain of the soils which do not fit the descriptions a) through d) 
above may also possess the potential for the transfer of contaminants 
to surface water. Miscellaneous land types such as escarpment, bottom 
land and recent alluvium are often located in such a way as to contribute 
water over the surface or laterally directly to a stream or river. 

2,b) Some soils which are medium textured throughout the profile and which 
occur on slopes of less than 6%, and which are classified into the 
imperfectly drained class may be expected to contribute water to a 
moderate degree to both surface and ground water systems. Dissolved 
materials will be transferred to both these systems, and particulate or 
suspended matter will also move into surface water systems. 

3.b) Medium textured soil profiles which are poorly drained may have a high 
potential to contribute dissolved material to ground water. Runoff is 
low or very reduced, and water has to pass through the profile to 
ultimate drainage into ground water. 

c) The most common conditions under which water will percolate to ground 
water are the deep sandy and gravelly profiles. These soils have very 
rapid infiltration rates and permeabilities, and are usually well 
drained. 

d) Shallow soils overlying limestone bedrock are also considered as 
possessing the potential for ground water pollution. The fractured rock 
permits the rapid transfer of water and dissolved material to ground 
water. 



4.b) Certain soils can be considered as having a low potential for the 
transfer of pollutants to water systems; these include the medium 
textured, well drained soils on slopes less than 67.. 

c) Other soils in the group include the sandy textured soils overlying 
clay, where slopes are less than 37. and lateral water movement over 
the clay materials is at a minimum. 

5.a)and b) Fine and medium textured soils which are poorly drained may 

possess the potential to transfer sediment and dissolved materials to 
surface water and also dissolved material to ground water. These 
soils often receive runoff water from higher elevations but, because 
of their location, runoff does not leave them rapidly enough to keep 
these soils imperfectly or well drained. Though fine textured, water 
does move through these soils in large enough quantities to pose a 
potential ground water pollution problem. 

c) Bedrock, Rockland and other rock outcrop situations are potential 
conditions where any available pollutants might be transferred to 
either surface or ground water. 

Table I. lis a summary of the soil grouping criteria as outlined above. 

Table 1.2 lists many Southern Ontario soils according to their grouping in the 

system described. 

Map 1.3 shows the generalized distribution of the soil pollution transfer 
potential in the Canadian Lower Great Lakes Basin. The mapping procedure which 
has preceded this map included the photographing of all of the soil maps of 
the Ontario Soil Survey of the counties included in this area. Two soil maps 
which have not been published but which are in single, original copy form were 
also photographed*. These photographs were reduced or enlarged to the common 
scale of 1:250,000 and composited to match the Canada Land Inventory Soil 
Capability maps. The soil groups were color coded and the maps colored. 
Generalized overlays were then produced, photographed and reduced to 1:500,000 
and 1:1,000,000. (see Map 1.3). 



* Thanks are expressed to Dr. D. Hoffman and Dr. C. Acton for loan of maps 
of Brant and Waterloo Counties respectively. 



11 



Table 1.1 Summary of Criteria for Grouping of Soils by Potential for 
Pollutant Transfer 

Group 1. Soils with high potential for transfer of pollutants to surface 
water systems (streams and small lakes) and low potential for 
transfer to ground water: 

1 . a . Fine textured profiles, low infiltration rate 

PROFILE TEXTURE SLOPE DRAINAGE CLASS 

clays, clay loams all good, imperfect 

silty clays " " " 

silty clay loams " " " 

l.b. Medium textured profiles, low infiltration rate 

loams, silt loams > 67. well drained 

loams, silt loams all good, imperfect 

I.e. Coarse textured profiles 

sands or sandy loams over clay >3% good, imperfect 

l.d. Organic soils 

all tile drained or 
pumped 

I.e. Miscellaneous land types 

bottom land 

alluvium 

escarpment 

Group 2. Soils with moderate potential for transfer of pollutants to 
surface water and ground water: 

2*b. Medium textured profiles 

loams, silt loams <67. mainly imperfect 



12 



Group 3. Soils with high potential for transfer of pollutants to ground 
water, but low potential to surface water: 

3.b. Medium textured profiles 

PROFILE TEXTURE SLOPE DRAINAGE CLASS 

fine sandy loams all mainly poor 

gravelly loams " " " 

loam over gravel " " " 

3.c. Coarse textured profiles 

deep sands and sandy loams " " " 

sands or sandy loams over gravel " " " 

3.d. Shallow soils overlying bedrock 

ti ii ii 

Group 4. Soils with low potential for transfer of pollutants to either 
surface or ground water: 

4.b. Medium textured profiles 

loams, silt loams 6% mainly well 

4.c. Coarse textured soils 

sands or sandy loams over clay 3% all 

Group 5. Soils with high potential for transfer of pollutants to both 
surface water systems and ground water: 

5. a. Fine textured profiles 

clays, clay loams all poor 

silty clays " " 

silty clay loams " " 

5.b. Medium textured profiles 

loams, silt loams " " 

5.c, Rock outcrop 



13 



Table 1.2 Tentative groupings of some Southern Ontario Soils 

L. Soils with high potential for contribution of pollutants to 
surface water systems, and low potential for contribution to 
ground water . 

la. Fine textured soils, low infiltration rate, well and 
imperfectly drained. 



Alberton SiCL 

Brantford CL, SiCL 

Brockport CL 

Caistor CL, C, Sandspot phase 

Cashel C 

Chinquacoury CL 

Cooksville C 

Craigleith CL 

Dunedin CL, C 

Elderslie SiCL, CL 

Elmbrook CL, C 

Gananoque C 

Haldimand CL, SiCL, C 

Huron CL 

Kemble CL , SiC 

King CL, Steep phase 

Lockport CL 

Lambt on 

Landsdowne C 

Lindsay C, Steep phase 



Lovering CL, SiCL 

Medonte SiCL 

Monaghan CL 

Oneida L, CL 

Peel CL, C 

Perth CL, SiCL, C 

Renfrew CL 

Rideau CL 

Saugeen CL, SiCL 

Schomberg CL, SiCL, Steep phase 

Smithfille L, SiCL 

Smithfield CL 

Solmesville CL 

South Bay C 

Thames CL 

Vincent CL , SiCL 

Waupoos C 

Niagara C 



lb. 



Medium textured scils, low infiltration rate, well and 
imperfectly drained. 



Alberton SiL 
Brantford L, SiL 
Caistor L 
Chinquacoury L, SiL 
Elderslie SiL 
Haldimand L, SiL 
Huron L, GL , SiL 
Kemble SiL 
King SiL 
Lambt on L, SiL 
Magnetawan SiL 
Medonte SiL 



Monaghan SiL 
Oneida SiL 
Perth L, SiL, SL 
Saugeen SiL 
Schomberg SiL 
Smithville SiL 
Smithfield SiL 
South Bay SL 
St. Clements SL 
Tavistock FSL, SiL, L 
Vincent SiL 
Wellesley SL 



Medium textured soils on slopes exceeding 6%, well drained. 



Bennington L, SiL 
Bondhead L, SL 
Brant FSL, SiL, L 
Darlington SL, L 
Deloro L 
Dummer L 

Eldorado SL, L, L-steep 
Freeport SL 
Galesburg L, SL 
Grenville L 
Guelph SL, L 
Guerin SL-steep 
Harkaway L, SiL 



Harriston L, L-steep, SiL 

Honeywood vFSL, SiL, FSL 

Leith SiL 

Miami L, SiL, CL, GL 

Newburgh SiL, FSL 

Newcastle SiL, CL 

Norham SiL 

Osprey SL, L 

Otonabee SL, L, L-steep 

Seely's Bay SiL 

Vasey -steep phase 

Woburn SL, L 

Wooler SiL 



14 



lc. Coarse textured soils overlying fine textures on slopes exceeding 3%, 
well and imperfectly drained. 

Berrien S, LS Dundonald SL 

Bookton FSL, SL Edenvale SL 

Dalton SL Winona SL, FSL 

Id. Organic Soils, if artificially drained. 

Muck 
Peat 

le. Miscellaneous land types and recent alluvium soils. 

Alluvium Grand L 

Boomer L Hawkesville L 

Bottom Land Haysville L 

Donald L Macton L 

Elmira L Martin S 
Escarpment 

Soils with moderate potential for contribution to both surface water 
and ground water . 

2b. Medium textured soils on slopes <6%, mainly imperfectly drained. 

Battersea SiL London L, SiL 
Bennington L, SiL, FSL, vFSL Matilda L 

Beverly SiL, FSL, L Matson SiL 

Codrington SiL Milliken SL, L 

Conestogo L Murray SiL 

Embro SiL Otonabee SL, L 

Emily L Piccadilly FSL 

Guerin L, SL Tuscola FSL, L, SiL 

Heidelberg FSL Whitby L 

Kossuth SL Wiarton L, SiL 

Listowel L, SiL Pelham L 



15 



Soils with high potential for contribution to ground water and low 
potential for contribution to surface water . 

3 b. Medium textured soils, mainly poorly drained. 

Bainsville SiL Lily L 

Colwood FSL, L, SiL Lyons L 

Crombie SiL, FSL Maryhill L 

Fox FSL Mill SL 

Hinchingbrooke L, SiL Parkhill L, SiL 

Killean L Petherwick SiL 

Stockdale SiL 



3 d. 



Coarse textured soils. 

Alliston SL, FSL 

Ayr SL 

Bamford SL 

Bancroft SL 

Brady S, SL, GL 

Bridgman- S 

Brighton S, SL, GS , GSL 

Brisbane L 

Burford GL, Co.L, L 

Caledon FSL, L, GL 5 SL 

Camilla SL, FSL, SiL 

Colborne SL 

Cramahe GSL, GL . 

Donnybrook SL 

Dumfries L, SL 

Eastport G, S 

Flamboro SL 

Font SL 

Fonthill SL, L 

Floradale L 

Fox S, LS, GL, SL 

Foxboro FSL 

Gilford GL, SL 

Grimsby FSL, SL 

Granby SL, S 

Gwilliambury SL , GSL 

Harrow L 

Shallow soils overlying bedrock. 

Ameliasburg CL 
Athol SL 
Burnbrae L 
Farmington L, CL 
Gerow CL 

Brook L 

Breypen L 



Hillsburg SL, FSL 
Kenabeek SL 
Kirkland SL 
Lisbon SL 
Mannheim L 
Mallard SL 
Monteagle SL 
Oshtemo LS , S 
Percy FSL 
Pike Lake L 
Plainfield S 
Pontypool S, SL, GS 
Rubicon SL 
Sargent SL, L, GSL 
Springvale SL 
St.Jacobs L 
Sullivan S, SL 
Tecutnseth S, SL 
Teeswater SiL 
Tennyson SL 
Tioga S, FSL, LS-steep 
Trent FSL 
Vineland SL, FSL 
Watrin S 
Wendigo S, LS 
White Lake GSL 
Wyevall GSL 
Pel ham SL 

Hillier CL 
Shasawandah L 
Trafalgar C, SiCL 
Whitfield FSL 



16 



Soils with low potential for contribution to both surface water and 
ground water . 

4'b. Medium textured soils, mainly well drained, slopes <s6%. 



Ancaster SiL 
Bondhead SL, L 
Brant FSL, SiL, L 
Darlington SL, L 
Deloro L 
Dummer L 
Eldorado SL, L 
Freeport SL 
Grenville L 
Guelph SL, L 
Harkaway L, SiL 
Harriston L, SiL 



Honeywood SiL, VFSL, FSL 
Leith SiCL 
Miami L, SiL, GL 
Newburgh FSL, SiL 
Newcastle SiL, CL 
Norham SiL 
Ontario L 
Osprey L, SL 
Seely's Bay SiL 
Vasey L, SL 
Waterloo SL, FSL 
Woburn L, SL 
Wooler SiL 



4 c. Coarse textured soils overlying fine textures, slopes <37„. 

Berrien S , LS , SL, FSL 

Bookton FSL, SL 

Brookston CL, Sandspot phase* 

Dalton SL 

Dundonald SL 

Edenvale SL 

Winona SL, FSL 



* If surrounded by sand 



17 



Soils with high potential for contribution to both surface water and 
ground water . 



5a. 



Fine textured soils, poorly drained. 



Atherley CL, SiCL 

Blackwell C 

Brookston CL, C, Sandspot phase* 

Chesley CL, SiCL 

Clyde CL, C 

Ferndale CL 

Jeddo C, CL 

Lindsay CL, C 

Lincoln CL 

* If surrounded by clay 



Malton C 
Minesing Marly C 
Mississauga CL 
Morley SiCL, C 
Moscow C 
Napanee C 
Sidney C 

Simcoe CL, C SiCL 
Toledo SiCL.'c, CL 
Welland C 



5b. 



Medium-textured soils, poorly drained. 



Brookston SiL 
Chelsey SiL 
Clyde L 
Dorking SiL 
Ferndale SiL 
Jeddo SL, L 



Maplewood FSL, L, SiL 
Minesing SiL 
Morley L, SC 
Toledo SiL 
Wauseon SL, FSL 
Wilmot SL 



5c. 



Rock outcrop. 



Rockland 

Bedrock 

All lithic soil phases. 




PAGE 18 










hi Z '3. 



i ' 



; 3, 3. ^3 



SOIL POTENTIAL FOR POLLUTANT 
TRANSFER TO WATER SYSTEMS 



SCALE 1:1.000,000 



MAP 1.3 



GROUP 






SUB-GROUP 


POTENTIAL FOR 


POLLUTANT TRANSFER 






Profile 


e.ture Oihe. 


la 


to 




A 


B 


coarse shallow orgami n 
C E 


K waw? 


*T," 


1 
2 

3 

5 








h,gh 
h,gh 


h,gh 
low 
high 



N comple> 

P ' peal 

'in ( ond I. line (1 1 



Soil Research Insniuti n IE | Reseai I Service Agriculture Canada 

! .... , . , ■ Inil CD A Guelph 

i.i,.,,.,, i.. ' .',• Cossen i ' McRae Soil Research Institute Ottawa 19 I '4 

h ise map Oniar.i S ' ' ■ ■ -• Ph ■'■ r H h ■ dui n wv S fi I Ca ■■ . 



19 



AGRICULTURAL LAND USE INVENTORY 



INTRODUCTION 



An agricultural land use inventory for Southern Ontario was 
implemented by Agriculture Canada (Soil Research Institute and Engineering 
Research Service) during the 1973/74 fiscal year. The project was initiated 
to supply some of the agricultural data required by the proposed study of the 
International Reference Group on Great Lakes Pollution from Land Use Activities. 
The agricultural portion of the proposed Watershed Studies (Task C) required 
crop and livestock data for the identification of distinct agricultural regions, 
and subsequently, for the selection of agricultural watersheds. The Land Use 
Inventory (Task B) of the Reference Group Study identified the need for data 
on nutrient inputs from fertilizer usage and livestock operations. 

The inventory carried out in support of these tasks consisted of a 
cartogrgihic presentation of data from the 1971 Census of Agriculture, Statistics 
Canada, pertaining to livestock type, crop acreage and fertilized acreage 
(see Agricultural Land Use maps, pgs. 24 - 47) 



1. The agricultural land use inventory covered the Canadian Great Lakes Basin 
south of latitude 45 N. 



20 



METHODOLOGY 

COMPUTER METHODOLOGY : 

The Agricultural Characteristics maps were produced on a line printer 
using the SYMAP package available from Harvard University. Because of the volume 
of data involved, a separate map at a scale of 1:250,000 was produced for each of 
the thirty-two counties studied. These were then pieced together and photo 
reduced. 

Proximal mapping was used, in which the symbolism for each character 
location is determined by the symbolism applicable to the nearest data point 
through an interpolation routine. Data is available for each county at the 
Enumeration Area (EA) level. The data points are located at the centroids of 
population of each EA. Urban EA's appear as blank areas, while rural EA's for 
which data has been suppressed are assumed to be similar to their neighbours. 

The raw input data consisted of four files: the results of the 1971 
Census of Agriculture; the UTM coordinates of the centroids of population of 
each EA; the area of each EA; and the UTM coordinates of the vertices of a 
simplified outline of each county. Since the first two files contain data for 
all areas of Canada and are grouped by Enumeration District, data from the first 
three files for the thirty-two counties of Southern Ontario was extracted and 
arranged by county on one tape. A programme acting as a front end to SYMAP using 
this tape calculates the actual data point values and the location of the EA. 
Card packages of county outlines produced from the fourth file were used directly 
as input to SYMAP to set the boundaries of the map being produced. 

In order to minimize problems arising from printer intensity differences 
all maps were run off-line at the same time using a fresh ribbon whenever possible. 



DATA: 
Area : 
Data for total area of the enumeration areas was provided by Statistics Canada. 

Crops and Livestock : 

Data for livestock types and numbers, crop acreages, fertilized acreages, and 
improved acreages was obtained from the 1971 Census of Agriculture (Statistics 
Canada) on an enumeration area basis. The data obtained from Statistics Canada 
was subject to the editing out of those enumeration areas with less than ten farms, 
and in certain other cases where suppression of data was necessary to maintain 
confidentiality. In cases where data for an agricultural enumeration area was 
suppressed, the average value of the surrounding enumeration areas was used. 



The computer programming described in this part of the report was carried out 
by Dr. M. Kaplansky, who also supplied the following summary of this work. 



21 



Nutrients : 

In the Report of the CDA Task Force For Implementation of the Great Lakes Water 
Quality Programme, March 1973, township census data had been converted to 
express livestock manure and fertilizer nutrient distribution. Similarly, 
conversion of enumeration area data to express nutrient inputs has been 
carried out : 

1. Density of Manure Nutrients: 

Annual N and P (expressed as P ? °c) values in fresh manure from each kind 
of animal had been calculated by the CDA Task Force for Implementation 
of the Great Lakes Water Quality Programme, 1973. These values were 
adapted for use in this study to give the following annual production 
values per animal for N and P: 

Table 1.3 Annual Manure Nitrogen and Phosphorus Production 

Kind of Animal N( lb/anim-yr ) P (lb/anim-yr) 

Milk Cows 140 65 

Bulls 140 65 

Beef Cows 70 32 

Calves 30 11 

Steers 58 36 

Heifers 58 36 

Hogs (Pigs & Sows) 23 14 

Sheep (Ewes i Lambs) 15 9 

Horses 95 33 

Hens 1.5 1.0 

Pullets 0.5 0.3 

Other Poultry 1.2 0.1 

Mink 0.8 2.4 

The total N and P (as P 9 0.) produced per enumeration area was calculated 
from the 1971 Census data and the coefficients listed above. These values 
were then expressed as density in terms of acres of improved farmland and 
total acres of all land. These densities were then mapped using the 
described computer mapping technique. 



2 2 



2. Density of Fertilizer Nutrients: 

Recommended Rates of Fertilizer Application: 

In the Report of the CDA Task Force for Implementation of the Great Lakes 
Water Quality Programme, March 1973, recommended rates of fertilizer 
application had been assigned for the major crops as follows: 



Table 1.4 Recommended Fertilizer Application Rates 

CROP Recommended Recommended 

N-Application ^p^s A PPl ication 

(lbs/acre) (lbs/acre) 

Corn (grain & silage) 100 60 

Soybeans 10 40 

Wheat 50 60 

Oats 20 20 

Barley 30 30 

Potatoes 70 150 

Tobacco 25 140 

Tree Fruits 200 60 

Small Fruits 85 60 

Vegetables 100 120 

Tame hay 50 40 

Alfalfa hay : 40 

Improved pas-cure 50 40 

Others 50 50 



Fertilized Acres: 

(a) The fertilized acreage from the 1971 Census of Agriculture on an enumeration 
area bases were used for the following crops: wheat, oats, barley, potatoes, 
tree fruits, small fruits and vegetables. 

(b) For corn and soybeans, all acres reported as "grown" were assumed to be 
fertilized, and for these crops the data for acres grown was used as 
"fertilized acres" in the calculations. 

(c) The ratio of "alfalfa hay grown" to "total hay grown" was calculated for each 
enumeration area. It was assumed that a similar relationship existed for hay 
fertilized, and this ratio was used to proportion the fertilized acres for 
total hay into "fertilized acres for alfalfa hay" and "fertilized acres for 
tame hay". 

(d) The 1971 Census of Agriculture contains a category of "other fertilized acres" 
which includes the fertilized acres of corn for silage and soybeans. For this 
project, fertilized acres for soybeans and corn for silage had been estimated 
as described above, and the reported "other fertilized acres" were adjusted 
accordingly. 



23 



For each crop, the recommended fertilizer application rate and the 
fertilized acre statistics for each enumeration area were used to calculate 
the total fertilizer nutrient input per enumeration area. These input 
figures were expressed as density on an improved farmland acre bases, and 
mapped using the previously described computer mapping technique. 

t 
3. Density of total Nutrients: 

The data from the calculation of manure nutrients and fertilizer nutrients 
was summed to give total nutrient inputs. These total nutrient inputs were 
expressed as density based on total acres of all land , and on acres or 
improved farmland and were mapped as previously described. 



PRESENTATION: 

The computer produced maps were of individual counties at the scale 
of 1:250,000. These were combined and reduced to give individual maps at the 
scale of 1:500,000 and 1:1,000,000 which covered that portion of the Canadian 
Great Lakes Basin south of latitude 45 N. 



ITEMS TO BE NOTED 

1. The land use maps for crops and livestock types, as well as some of the 
nutrient input maps, are expressed in terms of improved farmland acres. 
These maps should be used in conjunction with the map showing improved 
farmland as a per cent of all land, especially if densities in relation 
to total area are being considered rather than identification of the use 
of agricultural land. 

2. The symbols for the different mapping levels should always be identified. 
Visual densities cannot be used for all of the maps, especially at the 
scale of 1:1,000,000 due to variability in printing quality. 



1. Photo reductions supervised by R. St. John, Photo Mechanical Unit, 
S.R.I. Cartography 



24 



AGRICULTURAL CHARACTERISTICS 



Map no. 
Land 



Crops 



1. Improved farmland (area as percent of all land) 

2. Corn 

3. Soybeams 

4. Small grains 

5. Total hay 

6. Vegetables and small fruits 

7. Tree fruits 

8. Tobacco 

Livestock (number per improved farmland acre) 

9. Total cattle 

10. Milk cows and heifers 

11. Beef cattle 

12. Hogs 

13. Poultry 

Nutrients ( estimated pounds per improved farmland acre) 

14. Manure nitrogen 

15. Manure phosphorus 

16. Fertilizer nitrogen 

17. Fertilizer phosphorus 

18. Total nitrogen (manure plus fertilizer) 

19. Total phosphorus (manure plus fertilizer) 

Nutrients ( estimated pounds per acre of all land) 

20. Manure nitrogen 

21. Manure phosphorus 

22. Total nitrogen (manure plus fertilizer) 

23. Total phosphorus (manure plus fertilizer) 



PAGE 25 








> 

( : 


m*3sm'< 




. >#d HI**" 


HJjji : 


.:ajnn : H:i 



HOJ HD1 



AGRICULTURAL CHARACTERISTICS OF 
THE CANADIAN GREAT LAKES BASIN* 



MAPI Scale 1:1,000.000 

IMPROVED FARMLAND 

AREA AS PERCENT OF ALL LAND 



VALUE RANGE 












MINIMUM 


10 


30 


50 


70 


90 


MAXIMUM 10 


30 


50 


70 


90 


100 


SYMBOLS 






lii 


II 


■ 


• SOUTH OF LATITUDE 45°N 













Daia liom 1 'J ■" Census of Agnculluie Usei Summary Tape and Geouraphu T.ii'p Sialistn ■ ■ . . i 

Compuiei plot bv m Kaplansk, Daia Pi westing Aon > Canada 

Phoiogiaph luci s by S R I Canoijfaphy On,i«.i 

Uinoi Walci Sheds bv - R ' Can |Mph* Agmulimi ■■ .«■■-«■"— ' 
Canada Land Inventory Lands DnecioiaK En "■ ' ■■'■ "'■' "' r,t ' 



PAGE 26 




PAGE 27 




PAGE 28 




AGRICULTURAL CHARACTERISTICS OF 
THE CANADIAN GREAT LAKES BASIN* 

MAP 4 Stole 1:1,000,000 

SMALL GRAINS 

AREA AS PERCENT OF IMPROVED FARMLAND** 



VALUE RANGE 
















MINIMUM 








5 


15 


25 


40 


70 


MAXIMUM 





5 


15 


25 


40 


70 


100 


SYMBOLS 




Hi 




:H::i::i 


Sffljlfj 


iHI 


■ 



SOUTH OF LATITUDE 45°N 
SEE MAP 1 



Sol Research Institute and Engineering Research Setvice Ag<rculiure Canada 

Data from 1971 Census ol Agriculture User Summary Tape and Geographic Tape Statistic 

Computer plotting by M Kaplansky. Data Processing Agriculture Canada 

Photographic reductions by S R I Cartography. Ottawa 1974 

Minor Waiersheds by S fl 1 Cartography. Agriculture Canada. fo« the 

Canada Land Inventory Lands Dueclotate Environment Canada 1968 



PAGE 29 




C7>»,,r-Vfcr 



PAGE 30 





a 





j1 



HI 7 HF6 I 




M 



( 
2i 



'W?\\ HM3 



MO 3 ^jy HG 7/ 






'fWI 



Hcn\ HDO 



HD « HDS 












•Sfe 






Hi4 




— V 


vM 


M 


y 






*-3£. HK6 


|u:Ai* jv 




HK4 

, ' Hit a 


I 


KICf 

i8 





•*;., 


ESI 


tS?' 




CM 4 


/ »UI| 


/ 


^ 


CHi 


GM5 



/ —J- - 


laWron 
ii^rtv" C KENT 




iJiSji*!: :: 


/cj 09.* 


_«•» J^-ST 


/ o'l. :" 


j- sc ^L. 


^T~^WTT- — . 


■■■'■"■ ' :: ::-:^X- 



Hal 



••■•*** 



^ 



*«&«, 






GC« I 0C9 



' \ «cta '■ , GC " 



y* 




E R 



t E 




AGRICULTURAL CHARACTERISTICS OF 
THE CANADIAN GREAT LAKES BASIN* 

MAP 6 Scale 1:1,000,000 

VEGETABLES AND SMALL FRUITS 

AREA AS PERCENT OF IMPROVED FARMLAND** 



VALUE RANGE 




MINIMUM 





MAXIMUM 


5 


SYMBOLS 


: || 


• SOUTH OF LATITUDE 45°N 


•* SEE MAPI 





5 15 25 40 70 

15 25 40 70 100 



Soil Research Institute and Engineering Research Service. Agriculture Canada 

Data Irom 1971 Census ol Agriculture. User Summary Tape and Geographrc Tape. Statistics Canada 

Computer plotting by M Kaplansky Oala Processing, Agriculture Canada 

Photographic reductions by S R I Cartography Ottawa 1974 

Minor Watersheds by S R I Cartography. Agrrcultuie Canada, lor the 

Canada Land Inventory Lands Directorate Environment Canada 1 968 



PAGE 32 




PAGE 34 




PAGE 36 




AGRICULTURAL CHARACTERISTICS OF 
THE CANADIAN GREAT LAKES BASIN 

P 12 Scale 1:1,000,000 

HOGS 

NUMBER PER IMPROVED FARMLAND ACRE ** 



VALUE RANGE 
MINIMUM 
MAXIMUM 



25 50 75 100 125 
25 50 75 100 125 1000 



• SOUTH OF LATITUDE 45°N 
" SEE MAP 1 



Soil Research Institute and Engineenng Research Service. Agriculture Canada 

Oala I'om 1971 Census 01 Agriculture Use, Summary Tape and Geographic Tape Statistics Canada 

Computet ploinng by M Kaplansky Dala Processing Agriculture Canada 

Phologrophic leducnons by S R I Carlography Ottana IP 7a 

Minor Watersheds by S R I Cartography Agriculture Canada lor lite 

Canada Land Inventory Lands Drrectorole Enyrronmenr Canada 1968 



PAGE 37 




PAGE 38 




PAGE 39 




PAGE 40 




>«-• 



s. 



L A K 



HURON 






if 







. -. , \j / i 



'HIM ( WK3 



; H«ff!; „ V"? MC7 



m 






B 







:«P* ; HO 7. 



MD2 HOI 




.F« i 










.*% 



Hi:£; 



::::::;::;:;: 
S&I-V" 




P&y 




ESSti 



\ E 



>;;;::■ 






AGRICULTURAL CHARACTERISTICS OF 
THE CANADIAN GREAT LAKES BASIN* 



Scale 1:1,000,000 



FERTILIZER PHOSPHORUS (asP 2 5 ) 

ESTIMATED POUNDS PER IMPROVED FARMLAND ACRE ** 



VALUE RANGE 














MINIMUM 





10 


20 


30 


40 


50 


MAXIMUM 


10 


20 


30 


40 


50 


1000 


SYMBOLS 






ill 


IIS 


in 


.■ 


• SOUTH OF LATITUDE 45°N 












•• SEE MAPI 















Soil Research Institute and Engineering Research Serv.ce Agr.cullure Canada 

Data Irom 1971 Census of Agriculture. User Summary Tape and Geographic Tape Statistics Canada 

Computer plotting by M Kaplansky. Data Processing. Agnculiuie Canada 

Photographic reductions by SR I Cartography Ottawa 

Minor Watersheds by SRI Cartogiaphy Agt.cullure Canada tot the 

Canada Land Inventory Lands Directorate. Environment Canada 1968 



PAGE 42 




PAGE 43 




PAGE 44 




AGRICULTURAL CHARACTERISTICS OF 
THE CANADIAN GREAT LAKES BASIN^ 



ESTIMATED POUNDS PER ACRE OF ALL LAND 



5 15 25 35 45 

5 !5 25 35 45 1000 



Sotl Research Institule and Engmcer.ng Research Service Agriculture Canada 

Data horn I97l Census ol Agriculture Use' Summary Tape and Geographic Tape Statistics Canada 

Computer plotting by M Kaplansky Data Processing Agriculture Canada 

Photographic reductions by S R I Cartography Ottawa 

Minor Wateisheds by S R I Cartography Agriculture Canada lor Ihe 

Canada Land Inventory Lands Directorate Environment Canada I 968 



PAGE 45 




AGRICULTURAL CHARACTERISTICS OF 
THE CANADIAN GREAT LAKES BASIN* 

MAP 21 Scale 1:1,000,000 

MANURE PHOSPHORUS (as P 2 O s ) 

ESTIMATED POUNDS PER ACRE OF ALL LAND 



VALUE RANGE 
MINIMUM 
MAXIMUM 



15 
20 



20 25 

25 1000 



SOUTH OF LATITUDE 45°N 



Soil Research Institute and Engineering Research Service Agriculture Canada 

Data from 1071 Census ol Agncultote User Summary tape and Geogiaphic Tape Statistics Canada 

Computet plotting by M Kaplanslty Data Processing Agncultute Canada 

Photographic teducnons by S R I Cartography Ottawa 

Mmoi Watersheds by S R I Cartogtaphy Agncultute Canada lor the 

Canada land Inventory lands Directorate cnv.tonment Canada 1968 



PAGE 46 




PAGE 47 




AGRICULTURAL CHARACTERISTICS OF 
THE CANADIAN GREAT LAKES BASIN* 



Scale 1:1,000,000 



TOTAL PHOSPHORUS (as P 2 5 ) 

ESTIMATED POUNDS PER ACRE OF ALL LAND 



VALUE RANGE 
















MINIMUM 








10 


20 


30 


40 


50 


MAXIMUM 





10 


20 


30 


40 


50 


1000 


SYMBOLS 




IS 




Ipiji' 


jf™- 


Iffil 


■ 



* SOUTH OF LATITUDE 45°N 



Sod Research Institute and Engineenny Research Service Agriculture Canada 

Daia horn 1971 Census ol Agriculture User Summary Tape and Geographic Tape. Statistics Canada 

Compuie< plotting by M Kaplansky Daia Processing Agriculture Canada 

Photographic reduclions by SRI Cartography Ottawa 

M.nor Watersheds by S fl I Cartography Agriculture Canada lot. the 

Canada Land Inventory Lands Directorate Env.ronment Canada 1968 



48 



SOIL EROSION AND FLUVIAL SEDIMENTATION IN SOUTHERN ONTARIO 



Report on Preliminary Investigations 



G. J. Wall 

Ontario Soil Survey Unit, 

Agriculture Canada, Guelph 



W. T. Dickinson 
School of Engineering 
University of Guelph 



Data compilation: L. van Vliet 
J. C. Slot 
A. Scott 



V) 



INTRODUCTION 

Funds have recently been provided to the Ontario Soil Survey Unit, 
Guelph, to survey the extent and degree of soil erosion in Southern Ontario. 
Concurrent with these investigations, Dr. T. Dickinson, School of Agricultural 
Engineering, University of Guelph has assessed all available fluvial suspended 
sediment data for Southern Ontario streams in order to obtain some estimate of 
suspended sediment outputs to the Great Lakes. The purpose of this report is 
to summarize the results of these studies and attempt to relate these 
estimates of soil erosion to fluvial sediment data. 

ASSESSMENT OF SHEET EROSION FROM AGRICULTURAL LAND 

In an attempt to obtain quantitative estimates of soil erosion 
losses from agricultural land in the short period of time allotted for this 
study, it was deemed necessary to evaluate the utility of a soil loss 
prediction equation. The universal soil loss equation developed by Wischmeier 
and Smith (1965) was selected for use in the study. This equation expresses 
field soil loss in tons per acre as a function of rainfall characteristics, 
storm temporal distribution, soil, topography, surface cover, crop sequence, 
productivity, tillage, residue management and erosion-control practices. 
It enables the computation of long term average sheet erosion losses from 
agricultural land in Southern Ontario. 

The soil loss equation is A = RKLSCP (Wischmeier and Smith, 1965) 
where 

A - is the computed soil loss per unit area 

R - the rainfall factor, is the number of erosion-index units in a 
normal year's rain. 

K - the soil erodibility factor, is the erosion rate per unit of 

erosion index for a specific soil in cultivated continuous fallow. 

L - the slope-length factor. 
S - the slope gradient factor. 

C - the cropping-management factor, is the ratio of soil loss from a 
field with specified cropping and management to that from the 
fallow condition. 

P - the erosion-control practice factor, is the ratio of soil loss 
with contouring, stripcropping, or terracing to that with 
straight-row farming, up-and-down slope. 



50 



The universal soil loss equation was developed in central and 
eastern U.S.A. and is the result of over 8,000 plot years of basic 
erosion-plot data collected over a period of 20 years. The extension field 
plot measurements that are available to date indicate that soil loss 
predictions are sufficiently accurate to provide reliable guides for 
conservation farm planning. The major limitation of the universal soil loss 
equation is lack of sufficient research data for evaluation of some of the 
factors. For example, it is not possible to employ the soil loss equation 
to predict specific storm or specific year soil losses because additional 
data such as antecedent moisture content, soil surface conditions, etc. 
must be taken into consideration for these predictions. 

Prior to application of the universal soil loss equation in 
Ontario, it was necessary to determine the regional distribution of the 
rainfall factor (R) as well as to compute erodibility values (K) for soil 
materials. Slope gradient, slope length, and cropping factors used in the 
soil loss equation required no special adaptation for use in Ontario. 

The rainfall erosion index (R) is the longtime average yearly 
total of the storm EI values (total kinetic energy of the storm times its 
maximum 30 minute intensity). Previous research indicated that storm losses 
from cultivated fields were directly proportional to this factor (EI) when 
factors other than rainfall were held constant. Data for the computation 
of the R values for Southern Ontario were obtained from the Atmospheric 
Environmental Service, Environment Canada. Computed R values ranged from 
50 to 100 in Southern Ontario (Figure II. 1). Wischmeier and Smith (1965) 
reported R values in the U.S.A. that ranged from 600 in the south to as low 
as 50 in the northern states. 

The erodibility factor K of the soil loss equation is used to 
assess the relative erodibility of soil materials on the basis of inherent 
soil properties. Soil properties that influence erodibility by water are 
(1) those that affect the infiltration rate, permeability, and total water 
holding capacity, and (2) those that resist the dispersion, splashing, 
abrasion, and transporting forces of the rainfall and runoff (Wischmeier and 
Smith, 1965). In the soil loss equation, the K value is a quantitative 
value, experimentally determined from erosion plot studies. Time constraints 
rendered it impossible to determine K values for Ontario soil materials in 
this same manner. 



51 




52 



Wischmeier et £1.(1971) have published a convenient soil 
erodiblllty nomograph for the computation of K factors (Figure II. 2). Only 
five soil parameters need to be known: percent silt, percent sand, organic 
matter content, structure and permeability. Statistical confidence limits 
for the nomograph method of K computation revealed that 95 of 100 estimates 
of K should be within -0.02 of the true K value (Wischmeier et al.(1971)). 

The soil erodibility nomograph was used for the computation of K 
values for soil types found in Southern Ontario. The only major difficulty 
encountered in the use of the soil erodibility nomograph was with the silt 
fraction of the particle size parameter. Wischmeier et al_. (1971 ) have 
redefined the silt fraction (2-50 ^m) to include the very fine sand (50-100 ym) 
since research data indicated that the very fine sand behaved more like silt 
than like the larger sand in terms of erodibility. Unfortunately, the very 
fine sand content of most soil series in Ontario was not available and it 
was necessary to compute K values from the soil erodibility nomograph using 
the uncorrected silt fraction (2-50 um). 

Soil information required for the determination of K factors were 
obtained from published Ontario soil survey reports as well as from personal 
communication with individuals of the Ontario Soil Survey Unit, Guelph. The 
generalized distribution of K factor values in Southern Ontario is depicted 
in a map by grouping K values into four classes ( <20 , 20-30, 30-40, > 40 ) 
and indicating the distribution of each class (Figure II. 3). Maximum 
inherent soil erodibility is reflected by the highest K value. 

Crops, crop rotations, cultivation practices and yield information 
for the predominant agricultural systems in Southern Ontario were determined 
from personal communication with O.M.A.F. soils and crop specialists. This 
information was used to compute the cropping and management factor, C of the 
soil loss equation. Slope gradient and slope length factors that were needed 
for the soil loss equation were obtained from soil survey reports and topo- 
graphic sheets. The erosion control factor, P, of the soil loss equation was 
not used in this study since the occurrence of stripcropping , contouring or 
terracing in Ontario was assumed to be minimal. 

Figure II. 4 is a map of Southern Ontario that depicts average 
annual sheet erosion losses from agricultural land as predicted by the 
universal soil loss equation. The computed values reflect erosion losses 
from the predominant soil types in combination with the predominant crop, 
yield levels and management practices associated with these soils. Therefore, 
erosion losses from small acreages of highly erodible soil materials, stream- 
banks, urban centers, or poorly managed agricultural land were not considered 
in the soil erosion loss computations indicated in Figure II. 4. The highest 
predicted average annual sheet erosion losses occurred in the Thames, 
Sydenham, Ausable and Humber watersheds. 



53 



V v V 






\\\\v\ 1 >. 






o 








> 


w 


V _J 

\ CD ^ 


g 




\ 










\\\\ 


s\ 


< T> a 


tM 


\ 




\\ 








\\\ 


\\\ 


s 


. E." 


> 




s 


v VS> 












cr 














\ 


\>x> 


\ w • - s " 










\\ 








v\\\'.\ "■ >. > • i * J 


P 








■v ^\ 








\\S N 


v \\ 




S 








\ \\ 








\\v 


\ x X 




•i Jt 4 «i cvi - 

41 


1" 


HI 
IE 




















Z> 


\ \ 


\\ 








\\v\. 


\\ 


CE 






1- 

o 

i 


\ 


\ \ \ 








\>" 


\\\ 






6c 


o • 




\\ v > 








V s 


,\\\N 




1 = 


_i 

o 




S N 


0\ 






s s 




\\ 


I 


»E 




\ 


\.\_\, 








..N\\ 


\\\ 










k\v 








vV 


\ v\ 






3 » 








s.\ s 








\! 


\\\v 




X 


C b h • 










\ \ 


\\ 






\\W'.\ 




i-5 ; ° 










\ 


v ^\ 






■ 


\\\N 


.s\ 






e a. 

• O w 










\ 


\\\ 








\\\ 


\\\ 














^ \ v 








v\ 


\ \\\ 
















\\> 






>i> 


\ 


V\\ 






;?•• 












\ \ 


s\ 








v\\\ 


\ ^ 




!SE< 












^ 






! 




\\v 


o 




+ 




o o o o o o o 

N-. to m. * l*> cm — ■■ 


O 




X JO NOIlVWIXOUddV 


iSaiJ x'aoiovj xiniaiaoa3--iios 




o o 


O o o 


2 o 




H- tp 


in <f m 












■ ■ rv ■ 














,.,.,,,, 


o> c 






\ 




"> 


* «\ 
















,r, u 


- i i 


« 




. \ 






\ \ 














o„ / 


/ / 


^ 


T 


x^ > 


K 




IO\ 


















- a. 2 


_ 


Q_ 






























\ -J 


\ 










s 


m / 


'// 




3 ~' « . 


< 






\ 


\ 


\ \ 








o ' 




'// 




1 If s 
1 "- S J 


cr 
o 
o 

o 




s 
o 


\ \ 
\ \ 


\ 
\ \ 






?// 


/ / . 




f / 












\ \ 


> 


, V 


/.,:./ 




< 


E 

o 












\ \ \ 
\ \ 


\>C* 


/ // 


'.J 








". - 5 


>- 










\KXX 


\'// 




Ul 

o 


1 

o 












o ^/"Y\f\/\ 


yy 




a. 

UJ 
0. 


o 




. 5 S « 

3 ? - 5 

S ". S i 

- 1 1 3 : 

i° J; 
-2=5 


-II 
O 








/ 


W/. 














;^v< x 




















<T\ 






/¥'// 


' / y 


,/ \ x v 














/,'/ y 




V 


,\\: 










UJ 




°V 


/ myy. 


''*y 






C\\\ 










1 1 1 


1 

_l 


Jy 




^/t>^ 








\vv 








1 


Csi 


O 














•\\ 








sii 


CO 






-^^ 








! ^ 










o o 


ooooooooc 


> 




cviio^-intDt^-oooiQ 

ONVS 3NI3 A.d3A + 11IS J.N3383d 






I 
I 




s ft U B LE 



AVERAGE ANNUAL SOIL LOSS 
IN TONS/ACRE 




■ .V.V.y. 



/■:••■••'■' v.v.-.v *^// • ■ ■■•■.:•■.■. / 



*•;»■:■>■ ■•:■:■>». 

■b .■■■.■■v.' ^ 



-- ^ G * f „'■••'• '^ ■.':••• 




PAGE 55 



M. 



0-3 



"liSsftf 



■.V.V.y.v S A U G E E N 



>9 
Watershed Boundary 









. -.v.-.v 



\ ^ 



•Lly'^'v/////^ 






<*• /..I.. 

■0" fy.v.v! 




rtlJlA- 



U:::. : i:!i; • 




j 



'•'" < 



/ v. 



M I R A 






( - j 



>* Sa-? s 



^•^ 






r 




S- • • V ."!Y.V<\y.y ■ • V.K..V.V.V.V • • ■ >V*?. • / 



KE ERIE 



&'+ 




LAKE ONTARIO 




PREDICTED SHEET EROSION LOSSES 

FROM AGRICULTURAL LAND 

IN SOUTHERN ONTARIO 



ASSESSMENT OF FLUVIAL SEDIMENT DATA 

The universal soil loss equation is a useful tool for the 
prediction of sheet erosion losses but provides no reliable data for the 
prediction of fluvial sediment loads. In an attempt to locate watersheds 
with high sediment outputs to the Great Lakes from south-western Ontario 
streams all available fluvial sediment data was assessed. Two main sources 
of fluvial sediment data were located: (1) Water Quality Branch, Ministry 
of the Environment and (2) the Water Survey of Canada, Inland Water 
Directorate, Department of the Environment. Data obtained from the Water 
Quality Branch, Ministry of the Environment may be characterized as follows: 
grab sample obtained from stream segment of greatest flow, time oriented 
sampling, general lack of discharge data, and total solids and suspended 
solids analysis. The periodicity of this data as well as the lack of 
discharge information renders the Water Quality Branch suspended sediment 
measurements unsuitable for the assessment of fluvial sediment outputs to 
the Great Lakes. 

Fluvial sediment data available from the Water Survey of Canada 
may be characterized as follows: depth integrated sampling related to the 
entire stream cross-section, flow oriented sampling intervals, daily 
discharge measurements, and suspended sediment analysis. While the quality 
of this data seems adequate for the prediction of fluvial sediment outputs 
to the Great Lakes, data are only available for six streams in Southwestern 
Ontario. Table II. 1 depicts the streams, basin size, and average annual 
suspended sediment loads for which Water Survey of Canada data are available 
in southwestern Ontario. Big Otter Creek and the Humber River have the 
largest suspended sediment loads. 

Table II. 1 - Streams, Basin Size and Average Annual Suspended 
Sediment loads from Water Survey of Canada Data 



River 



Gauge 
Location 



Size(mi ) 



Annual 
Suspended Sediment 
tons/acre 



Big Otter Creek 



Vienna 



269 



Big Creek Walsingham 228 

Canagagigue Creek Elmira 42 



Humber River Elder Mills 117 

Humber River Weston 309 

Thames River (Upper) Ingersoll 200 

Maitland River Donneybrook 680 



.3 
.3 

<.l 

<.l 



57 



SUMMARY 

The universal soil loss equation was used to obtain estimates 
of soil erosion losses from agricultural land in Southern Ontario. The 
results of this study revealed that soil erosion losses of to 15 tons/ 
ac/yr. may be anticipated from the predominant agricultural regions in 
the Province. The aerial distribution of the magnitude of predicted sheet 
erosion losses from agricultural land is shown in Figure II. 4. 

Sediments eroded from agricultural land may not be transported 
great distances. Deposition of sediments often occurs locally, or more 
specifically, in the same field as the initial erosion as a result of slope, 
crop, drainage or cultivation changes. However, some percentage of the 
eroded material will reach major streams with ultimate deposition into the 
Great Lakes. 

Water Survey of Canada data for six streams in Southwestern 
Ontario indicated suspended sediment yields of 0.1 to 0.5 tons/ac/yr. 
These values are in agreement with estimates of the average annual fluvial 
suspended sediment yields of 0.4 tons/ac/yr. for major streams of the North 
American continent (Holeman, 1968). The origin of fluvial sediments is 
generally attributed to agricultural, urban and streambank sources. But, 
the partitioning of the total fluvial sediment load into the relative 
contributions of agricultural, urban aid streambank sources remains a 
matter of speculation. 

Additional funding has been received to obtain detailed estimates 
of soil erosion losses from 15 agricultural watersheds in Southern Ontario. 
This data will be used to compare predicted soil erosion losses with actual 
measured fluvial suspended sediment outputs from the agricultural watersheds. 
It is anticipated that this information will provide an appreciation of 
sediment delivery ratios from agricultural land to streams in the different 
physiographic and agricultural regions of Southern Ontario as well as 
assisting in the extrapolation of soil erosion data for the entire Great 
Lakes Basin. 



58 



ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 

The authors wish to express appreciation to Messrs. L. van Vliet, 
J. Slot and A. Scott for much of the data compilation associated with this 
project. 

REFERENCES CITED 

Holeman, J.N. 1968. The sediment yield of major rivers of the world. 
Water Resources Research 4:737-747. 

Wischmeier, W.H. and D.D. Smith, 1965. Predicting rainfall-erosion losses 
from cropland east of the Rocky Mountains. 
Agriculture Handbook No. 282, A.R.S., U.S.D.A. 

Wischmeier, W.H., Johnson, C.B. and B.V. Cross, 1971. A soil erodibility 
nomograph for farmland and construction sites. J. Soil and 
Water Conservation 26:189-193. 



A SELECTIVE INVENTORY OF LARGE LIVESTOCK OPERATIONS 
SOUTHERN ONTARIO 

(by aerial photograph interpretation) 



D. R. Coote 

Engineering Research Service 

E. M. MacDonald 

Soil Research Institute 

M. Dwyer Rigby 

Soil Research Institute 



M. 


Cossette 


J. 


Dewe 


G. 


Harder 


J. 


MacCallum 


D. 


McRae 


0. 


Rigby 



Photo interpretation: J. 

R. 

D. 

F. 

J. 

M. 

Drafting: R. LaFrance( Economics Branch, Agriculture Canada) 
Consultation throughout project - photo interpretation, programme 
development and implementation: 

Mr. L. E. Philpotts 

Economics Branch 

Agriculture Canada, Ottawa 

Technique development and initial staff training: 
Mr. R. A. Ryerson 
Canada Centre for Remote Sensing 
Dept. of Energy, Mines and Resources, Ottawa 

Implemented and supervised by Agriculture Canada as part of the Agriculture 
Canada - Environment Canada contribution to implementation of the Great 
Lakes Water Quality Agreement. 



60 



INTRODUCTION 

Effective implementation of the Great Lakes Water Quality 
Agreement must be based on factual, up-to-date information. Agricultural 
land use is one of the land uses identified in the Agreement as requiring 
study in relation to the present environmental situation. Southern Ontario 
is Canada's highest agricultural producing area as well as her largest 
internal marketplace for these same goods. Livestock production, particu- 
larly that of the ever-increasing confinement facility operations, plays 
no small role in the economy of this region. Indeed, it is an increasing 
land use phenomenon and the management of livestock waste is becoming a 
factor of immediate concern. 

Article V of the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement, Section (d) 
dealt with measures for abatement and control of pollution from agricultural 
land use activities, with specific mention of livestock operations as 
follows : 

Article V (d) 

(ii) "measures for the abatement and control of 

pollution from animal husbandry operations, 
including encouragement to appropriate 
regulatory agencies to adopt regulations 
governing site selection and disposal of 
liquid and solid wastes in order to 
minimize loss of pollutants to receiving 
waters". 

The need for an up-to-date inventory or comprehensive survey 
concerned with the location and type of livestock operations in the Great 
Lakes Basin was recognized. This data is required to formulate programmes 
and control measures pertaining to pollution from animal husbandry opera- 
tions. A joint Agriculture Canada/Envi::onment Canada project was initiated 
to meet this need. This livestock operation survey was adapted to meet some 
of the requirements of Task B (Land Use Inventory) and Task C (Watershed 
Studies) of the International Reference Group on Great Lakes Pollution from 
Land Use Activities. This project utilized aerial photograph interpretation 
as the inventory method. Livestock operations in Southern Ontario were 
located, classified as to type and size of animal population, and assessed 
as to mode of waste management practiced. 



bl 



PROJECT OBJECTIVES 

The data gleaned from this particular inventory was required to 
fulfil objectives relating to the management of livestock waste as concerned 
with location, type and size of animal population, type of waste product 
and storage of same, relationship of waste to water and soil, and its odour 
aesthetic pollution potential. Specific project goals may be considered to be: 

- calculation and recording of livestock operations; 

a) type of operation (species of animal) 

b) animal population (size) 

- analysis of the population's confinement in terms of the 
locational relationship of this phase of the operation to 
natural waters; 

- identification of the type of management of the population's 
organic waste; 

a) type of waste produced 

b) storage of wastes 

c) disposal of wastes 

- designation of an operation in respect to 

a) location of the confinement facility or shelter structure 
and the waste product in relation to the potential pollutant 
transfer capability classification of the soil in the 
immediate area 

b) location of the livestock population within an individual 
watershed and related drainage system of the Great Lakes 
Basin 

c) location of the operation relative to its proximity to 
road traffic and urban living conditions (aesthetic 
pollution, health hazard) 

- calculation and assessment of the above factors combined in such 
a way as to relate livestock operations (species, populations 
and confinement facilities) to geographical locations in 
watersheds, soil types, and counties of the Ontario sector of 
the Great Lakes Basin. 

- calculation and assessment of the above factors so as to determine 
areas where effluent or waste products from livestock operations 
may play a relatively significant role as a pollutant source. 
This information should contribute to study development in the 
Great Lakes Basin. 



b.\ 



METHODOLOGY 

DESIGN: 

This inventory of Southern Ontario's livestock operations was 
carried out as an aerial photograph interpretation analysis using existing 
photography. The total survey area was covered by black and white 
panchromatic 1:15,840 scale photography taken during the summers of 1966, 
1971 or 1972. (See Map IV- 1. See Appendix IV-1) 

The entire programme was designed to apply a rapid surveillance 
technique requiring minimum manpower to a large area of agricultural land 
in order to analyze the region for the presence of active livestock 
operations. Detection of problems or potential problems associated with 
environmental pollution was regarded as the end result of the analysis. 
The basic premise for the study was concurred to be a survey or inventory 
of livestock operations and the management of their waste in the Southern 
Ontario section of the Great Lakes Drainage Basin. 

Contact 9" x 9" prints from 1971 and 1972 flights were ordered 
from, and processed by, the Aerial Photography Department of the Ontario 
Ministry of Natural Resources. Copies of 1966 photography were not obtained. 
Interpretation of this material was done using the Ontario Ministry of 
Natural Resources library prints. 

1:50,000 National Topographic Series maps and mylar overlays 
containing Enumeration District and Enumeration Area information were used 
for plotting the geographic location of livestock operations and for 
designating the watershed in which each operation occurred. (This portion 
of the study will not be published but is available for government use). 

An information sheet, including a unique numerical designation 
for each interpreted livestock operation, was developed (see Appendix IV-2). 
This sheet, designed as the basis for a computer printout programme, gave 
provision for photograph, geographical, municipal, and watershed designation. 
Livestock type, size, type of confinement, waste type and mode of storage, 
slope of immediate terrain, distance from surface water flow, roads and 
urban developments were recorded directly on the information sheets. Provision 
for other aspects of specific interest concerning each interpreted operation 
was covered by a comments section at the bottom of the one page information 
sheet. 

Background material, such as publications providing information 
on livestock operations and their management, proved very useful particularly 
during the early stages of the project (see References). Statistics Canada 
information regarding the livestock population of Southern Ontario was often 
referred to. (see References). 



(VI 







rr> 






r- 






o> 






— 




o 


>- 

n- 




— 


o 




ir. 


t- 




< 


z 




H 


IaJ 




7» 


> 


J 


O 




a. 

< 


z 
en 
UJ 


z 
o 

H 
< 




X 


a. 



.S „ .£ 




M 



IMPLEMENTATION: 

The projected 5 month programme— required aerial photograph study 
and individual livestock operation interpretation using Abrams (CF-8) pocket 
stereoscopes or Abrams (CB-1) 2X - 4X stereoscopes. Individual building 
measurements were subsequently made using a Bausch & Lomb (81 - 34 - 35) 
measuring magnifier and the 0.005 section of the (81 - 34 - 36) general 
purpose scale. 

2/ 
Farm unit designation— , the unique numerical number registered on 

the information sheet, plus a symbol designating the type of livestock present, 

was recorded on each photograph and on the Mylar overlay of the corresponding 

1:50,000 topographic map sheet. (1971 and 1972 photographs were marked, 

1966 photographs, which did not become the property of the Department of 

Agriculture but remained in the library of the Ministry of Natural Resources, 

were not marked). 

In early November, a special two-day training period was given to 
aerial photograph interpreters hired for this project. Each interpreter was 
provided with a training package which was referred to throughout the intro- 
ductory session (see references). Land use, agricultural practices, aerial 
photograph interpretation, measuring techniques and procedures were discussed. 
The training session included reading assignments, examination of photographs, 
example situations of land slopes and livestock operation types, and a set of 
test photographs for study and examination. Implementation of developed 
methodology, as adapted to meet the requirements of this project, provided a 
firm basis on which to develop the programme. 



1/ Programme implementation and supervision came under the auspices of the 

Engineering Research Service and the Soil Research Institute of Agriculture 
Canada. Mr. R.A. Ryerson of the Canada Centre for Remote Sensing developed 
the techniques used in this particular analysis and was responsible for the 
initial staff training session. Mr. L.E. Philpotts of the Economics Branch 
of Agriculture Canada developed the measurement charts for the individual 
operations, took part in the ground checking exercise and was available for 
consultation regarding actual photograph interpretation throughout the project. 
Mr. C. Acton, Soil Survey Unit, Agriculture Canada, Guelph, supplied some 
training session photographs on which slope had been marked. 

2/ 'Farm' as used here and elsewhere in this report refers to an active livestock 
operation as interpreted and located in a specific geographic location. 



65 



A set of tables was developed which became the basis for population 
computations, once the livestock species and confinement management techniques 
of the operation had been interpreted (see Appendix IV-3). 

A two-day field trip (December 10-11, 1973) clarified many of the 
problems and early questions encountered by the interpretive staff. The first 
day involved visits to, and discussions with, livestock operators in the Guelph 
area (see appendix IV-4). The second day was devoted to field checking farm 
units which the staff had previously interpreted and recorded. 

Interpretation procedures changed as the programme developed: 
During the initial six weeks, November - December 1973, all farm units which 
an individual interpreter believed to house livestock were studied, interpreted, 
and subsequently measured and recorded. Minor operations were found to be taking 
up the bulk of the interpretation time and energy, particularly when this energy 
was expended at "guestimating" very small numbers of animals. In early January 
1974, the programme was modified so that, in general, only size class 3 livestock 
operations, and smaller size operations which were found close to water courses 
or lakes, or within urban areas, would be recorded (see Map IV- 1. See footnote 
to table IV-1. See appendix IV-2). The project thus became a locational 
inventory and waste management survey related to the relatively large agricultural 
operations in which livestock production was a major enterprise. The bulk of the 
study, approximately 907. of the geographical area and 657. of the livestock 
operations recorded, was handled during the last three months of the time allotted 
to this five-month project (November 1, 1973 to March 31, 1974). Map IV-1 shows 
the area done in detail and outlines the total area covered by the project. 
Approximately 1,650 operations were interpreted and recorded during the initial 
detailed phase. 

All 1971 and 1972 photographs were filed and stored in numerical order 
according to flightlines. Interpreters worked individually on 1:50,000 map sheets 
and Mylar overlays and the corresponding flightlines. Once all photographs 
relating to a map sheet had been interpreted, farm units designated and recorded 

on photographs, and Mylar overlays and information sheets completed, the Mylar 

3/ 
overlays were forwarded to the Economics Branch for final drafting— . A computer 

printout was compiled from the numerically unique information sheets and became the 

source of the data presented in the subsequent sections of this report. 



3_/ Mr. R. LaFrance of the Economics Branch did the final drafting of the serial 
numbers and type symbols on the Mylar map overlays. 



66 



The total project, including this report, took the equivalent of 
3 full time personnel 5 months to complete. During that time approximately 
10,500 photographs, covering in excess of 26,000 square miles, were handled. 
In total some 4,540 agricultural units were recorded in detail according to 
the information sheet data requirements. These operations were located in 
144 minor watersheds of 25 river basins of the Canadian Great Lakes Basin. 
They represent a relatively complete survey of the larger livestock operations 
of Southern Ontario including their location, animal species, waste management, 
and relationship to surface water flow, roads and urban development. 

The inventory represents a survey of Southern Ontario livestock 
operations at a particular point in time as follows (see Map IV-1, 
see appendix IV-1); 

- summer of 1966 for the area north and west of Moffat, 
Ontario (5 miles east of Guelph) 

- summer of 1971 north and east of Moffat, Ontario 

- summer of 1972 for any location south of a line from 
Bayfield on Lake Huron to Port Credit on Lake Ontario 

The resultant material provides information on only those operations which were 

active at the time of photography . 

All data have been organized so that the original material can be 
easily secured, checked and used in subsequent studies. Such subsequent 
programmes might use the information according to the time it was obtained, use 
it as a basis on which to compare changes through time, or use it in a specific 
problem analysis. Future projects to which this data would contribute could 
include: 

- watershed studies relating water quality and the presence 
of livestock operations; 

- assessment of livestock waste management practices in relation 
to water quality; 

- identification and study of areas or regions which are 
■representative of particular types of livestock operations 
and management characteristics; 

- changes and/or trends in livestock operations and management 
practices through time, as related to sequential aerial 
photography. 



67 



DISCUSSION 

RESULTS : 

The distribution of livestock operations recorded in this inventory 

follows the general pattern evident from the Census Data maps presented in 

Section I of this report. The relevant livestock maps appear in Section I. 

Livestock distribution is largely controlled by factors involving producer - 

4/ 
market relations and by crop production.— 

Results of this study serve not simply as an inventory of livestock 
operations according to their size and geographic locations, but also reveal 
characteristics of, and possible pollution implications for, such operations. 
Information regarding animal population and shelter type or confinement practices, 
slope of the land in the immediate vicinity of the buildings, proximity of 
livestock buildings to surface drainage channels, roads and residential dwellings, 
and waste management practices carried out at a given location have been directly 
recorded from aerial photographs. Both the data pertaining to size, type and 
geographic location of the livestock operation, and the specific information 
related to the characteristics of the operations, have been recorded on a 
computer print-out (see Appendix IV-5). This data can be used and analysed in 
numerous ways. 

The total study, understood as one of an inventory nature, provides 
a relatively clear picture of the presence of livestock operations in Southern 
Ontario. Map IV-1 outlines the total area covered in the project and the areas 
initially studied in detail, and shows the year of photography upon which the 
interpretation was based. Maps IV-2, IV-3, IV-4, and IV-5 provide a generalized 
view of the presence of large scale (or size class 3 - for definitions see 
Appendix IV-2) operations. Approximately 2,631 of the 4,540 livestock operations 
recorded were of this size class. A further 207. of the number of large operations 
were medium sized close to streams, road or houses, and were also recorded. 

A relatively clear picture of the general location of large livestock 
operations and the relationship between them and other agricultural aspects of 
Southern Ontario is obtained by study of these maps in conjunction with the 
material in footnote 4 and maps from Section I. 



4/ See Section I of this report - computer maps showing Agricultural Characteristics 
of the Canadian Great Lakes Basin. Note particularly maps of improved farmland 
as 7. of total land, and map showing acreages of corn, small grains and hay as % 
of improved land. See also ARDA, Canada Land Inventory, Soil Capability for 
Agriculture, maps and accompanying text for 1:250,000 map sheets 30 L,M,N ; 
31 C,D ; 40 I, J, P. 



PAGE 68 








/ LAS 




/ 


LA9 


LA 7 


MA6 


\ 


f MA7 






MAP IV- 2 

SOUTHERN ONTARIO 

LARGE DAIRY* OPERATIONS ACCORDING TO WATERSHED 
AND TOPOGRAPHIC MAP DESIGNATION 



represents 3 dairies as located in a particular watershed 
and as related to geographic location 



* A dairy with = 75 milkers was interpreted to be the prime activity taking 
place at the given geographic location. 



WATERSHED BOUNDARIES 
major river basin; stream basin; 



minor stream basin 



Minor Watersheds by S.R I Cartography, Agriculture Canada, for the 
Canada Land Inventory, Lands Directorate, Environment Canada 1968 
Photographic reductions by SRI Cartography, Ottawa 1974 



PAGE 69 




MAP IV-3 



SOUTHERN ONTARIO 

LARGE CATTLE FEEDLOT AND BEEF RAISING OPERATIONS* 

ACCORDING TO WATERSHED AND TOPOGRAPHIC 

MAP DESIGNATION 



■ represents 3 confined feedlot or cattle fattening operations 

a represents 3 open range beef cattle operations 

Each symbol represents 3 operations of = 150 animals as related to water- 
shed designation and the topographic map sheet location. 

* A confined feedlot operation or an open range beef operation of = 150 animals was 
interpreted to be the prime activity taking place at the given geographic location. 



WATERSHED BOUNDARIES 



— major river basin; 



stream basin; 



minor stream basin 



Minor Watersheds by S.R.I. Cartography, Agriculture Canada, for the 
Canada Land Inventory, Lands Directorate, Environment Canoda 1968 
Photographic reductions by 5 R Cartography, Ottawa 1974 



PAGE 70 




MAP IV-4 

SOUTHERN ONTARIO 

LARGE HOG* OPERATIONS ACCORDING TO WATERSHED 
AND TOPOGRAPHIC MAP DESIGNATION 



represents 3 hog operations as located in a particular water- 
shed and as related to their actual map sheet or geographic 
location 



* A hog operation with = 300 animals was interpreted to be the prime activity 
at the given geographic location. 



WATERSHED BOUNDARIES 
major river basin; stream basin; 



minor stream basin 



Minor Watersheds by S. R. I. Cartography, Agriculture Canada, for the 
Canada Land Inventory, Lands Directorate, Environment Canada 1968 
Photographic reductions by S. R I Cartography, Ottawa 1974 



^■■MM 



PAGE 71 



tit 

I 



LAKE 
HURON 




MAP IV-5 

SOUTHERN ONTARIO 



LARGE POULTRY OPERATIONS ACCORDING TO WATERSHED 
AND TOPOGRAPHIC MAP DESIGNATION 



t represents 3 poultry operations according to watershed designation 

and geographic location 



* A =30,000 bird operation was interpreted as being the prime agriculture activity 
undertaken at a given geographic location 



WATERSHED BOUNDARIES 
major river basin; stream basin; - minor stream basin 



MILES 

10 10 20 30 40 



Minor Watersheds by S.R.I. Cartography, Agriculture Canada, for the 
Canada Land Inventory, Lands Directorate, Environment Canada 1968 
Photographic reductions by S. R. I. Cartography, Ottawa 1974 



72 



As an Indication of possible pollution implications from livestock 
wastes, this study allows some aspects of the environmental pollution potential 
of Southern Ontario livestock operations to be looked at directly. Other 
aspects require special data retrieval and presentation and/or use of it 
together with other material noted throughout this report: 

- Waste management practices and potential pollution of water 
by livestock operations are elements for which this project 
provides direct information (e.g. manure storage types were 
recorded as well as proximity of the operation to surface waters) 

- Relationships of livestock operations to soil in terms of the 
potential of the soil in the immediate vicinity to transfer 
pollutants to water systems can be analysed in terms of the 
geographic locations of operations as related to the soil 
groups which have been classified according to the pollutant 
transfer capability. Soil types at each location may be 
found by checking published Soil Survey maps (see References) 
while Soil Potential for Pollutant Transfer may be checked by 
studying the map developed for this purpose (Section I, map 1-3). 

- Existing practices for the management of livestock wastes have 
been recorded where possible. Work with this part of the data 
could provide some valuable information concerning these 
characteristics, and provide a basis for a study of trends in 
the use of different practices. 

The full potential for the use of the data as it exists, and for its 
development for use in future studies, remains to be investigated. In order 
to demonstrate a possible interpretation of the results and to provide some 
insight into the usefulness of the data obtained, two minor watersheds (GA-2, 
Nith River and GA-4, Speed River) have been looked at in greater detail. 

Study of maps IV-2, IV-3, IV-4, and IV- 5-' showed that the central 
region in which the Grand River Basin is located tends to contain the highest 
overall concentration of large livestock operations, with the exception of 
poultry producers. The two minor watersheds chosen for a more detailed 
examination of the data were therefore selected from this basin. All 



— The base of these maps is the Watershed System map initially developed 
for the Canada Land Inventory, Environment Canada, 1968, and prepared 
by the Cartography Unit, Soil Research Institute, Agriculture Canada. 



7'! 

five livestock types generally recorded are found in these watersheds— . 
Both watersheds were partly covered by recent photography (1972) and 
partly covered by older photography (1966). The majority of the area 
of one was covered as a detailed (all farms) inventory, while the entire 
area of the other was covered only as a selective inventory of large 
operations, or those close to water courses or residences. 

Nith River Basin (GA-2) and Speed River Basin (GA-4) 

Examination of the data from these two watersheds provides an example of 

1) Interpretation from 1966 photos and 1972 photos: 

Photography taken in the summer of 1972 covers the southern 
two-thirds of the Nith River Basin (GA-2), and the southern 
one-quarter of the Speed River Basin (GA-4). Operations in 
the northern sections of both these basins were interpreted 
from 1966 photography (see maps IV-6, IV-7, IV-8 and IV-9). 

2) Detailed inventory - (all interpreted livestock operations were 
interpreted and recorded regardless of size): 

Approximately two-thirds of the Nith River Basin was interpreted 
in 'detail'. The detailed inventory was done for the portion of 
the basin which was covered by 1972 photography. None of the 
Speed River Basin was done in detail. All of the Speed River 
Basin was covered as a 'selective inventory', as was the northern 
part of the Nith River Basin, i.e. that portion covered by 1966 
photography (see maps IV-6, IV-7, IV-8 and IV-9). 

Tables IV-1 and IV-2 provide 'inventory' information as to the type, size 
and general location of interpreted livestock operations in the Nith and 
Speed River Basins respectively. Some of this material is graphically 
presented on Maps IV-6, IV-7, IV-8 and IV-9. These presentations, 
together with the tables, illustrate: 

Numerical relationships between different sized operations— of the 

8/ • 
same livestock type (Nith River Basin)— ' 



6/ This project generally interpreted, calculated numbers for, and recorded 
livestock operations as predominately dairy, beef, steers, hogs, and 
poultry. Throughout the study 'beef was used to refer to non-dairy 
cow/calf operations, whereas 'steers' was used to refer to or designate 
feedlots or confined facility beef cattle operations. 'Pigs' referred 
to either sow or feeder operations, and usually to an integrated mixture 
of sows and/or feeders at one farm site. 

7/ The number of livestock within each size class range for each livestock 
type reflects approximately equivalent manure nutrient production; 
however, the ranges of manure nutrient production within each size 
class were arbitrarily chosen. 

8/ This observation is based only on 1972 photo data for Watershed GA-2, 
since, in this case, all size classes were recorded. 




n- Small 
D-Medium 

I ^J-Large 

EACH SYMBOL REPRESENTS THREE OPERATIONS 



Map IV-6 Watersheds GA-2 (Nith River Basin) and 

GA-4 (Speed River Basin) - Dairy Operations 






-'WJl^-ft !♦-«» HlfcV=. 




FEEDLOTS AND BEEF OPERATIONS 



FEEDLOTS 

p -Small 
I -Medium 

| -Large 



BEEF 

o-Small 
O-Medium 

0" Lar 9 e 



EACH SYMBOL REPRESENTS THREE OPERAT IONS 



Map IV-7 Watersheds GA-2 (Nith River Basin) and 

GA-4 (Speed River Basin) - Feedlots and Beef Operations 




▼-Small 
▼-Medium 

y- Large 

EACH SYMBOl.REPRESENTS THREE OPERATIONS 



Map IV-9 Watersheds GA-2 (Nith River Basin) and 

GA-4 (Speed River Basin) - Poultry Operations 



78 



Dairy farms (Map IV-6) - Medium size dairy farms, that is those 
having between 25 and 74 cows, dominate the dairy industry in 
this watershed. The distribution of total numbers of animals 
between small, medium and large in this area was 77., 697. and 247. 
respectively. 

Feedlot and Beef operations (Map IV-7) - Feedlot (steer) 
operations fall almost entirely into the "large" or class 3 
category of greater than 150 cattle. Of the feedlot popula- 
tion, 987, was found in large operations. Conversely, beef 
operations (beef cow/calf) are either medium (50 - 149) or 
small (<50), with the latter being the dominant size class. 
However, 557. of the total number of these animals were in 
"small" operations, and 387. in "medium". 

Pigs (Map IV-8) - Pig operations vary widely in size, but large 
scale operations (>300 pigs) and medium sized farms (100 - 300 
pigs) tend to dominate. Again, however, almost 807, of the total 
number of pigs appear to be housed in the "large" operations, 
and 187. in the "medium". 

Distribution of livestock operations of different types and sizes: 
- The area of the Nith River Basin (GA-2) covered by 1972 

photography contains a uniform distribution of large dairy, 
feedlot and pig operations, with essentially no dominant type 
for the region, but there are few large poultry operations. 
The area of the Speed River Basin (GA-4) covered by 1972 
photography has no large poultry or dairy farms, and pig 
operations are dominant in this region. 

Relationships between data from 1966 and 1972 photography: 

Comparison between 1966 and 1972 photography can only be made 
with large sized operations, since only selective inventory 
coverage was done on 1966 photographs. In 1966 very few live- 
stock farms of size class three were present in this area, and 
those that were present were either beef feedlots or, to a 
lesser extent, pigs. The data implies that there has been a 
considerable increase in the size of most livestock operations 
since 1966, but no estimate of any changes in the total 
numbers of livestock can be made. The date of photography 
must always be considered when making inferences from the data 
contained in this report. 



79 







O ro O 


V. XL 6 




























a 


&. &. G. 





>3 o c 






due 



<N fl fO t*> 



(N O I/) v£> 







m m r-. r- 




in m m m 


in m m 



r-. oo 
a. a. 



<n o m 'O o 
o in in r- r-. 






HMMO 

o. &, n, &■ 






fN o m \o o wvo 
o in in t^ m in t~- 
m m in m in in in 



a. a. a, 



H s » 

G. G. a, 



"* ** Tt fN ^f 



o in m r- r- 
m m m m m 



0.0,0,0. 



-->»** 



O) 01 u 



•* CO CO fN 



OlflvOOl 

ir> in r- r» 
m m in in 



fN -J3 .-H — 1 T 

HH\f H 


—1 f) 


fN in •— i 


- 


in in in in m 


in in m m in 


m in m 


Oi 
in 



fN t~- OO 

&. G. G. 



a. a a. a. 



fN P- 00 

g. a. n. 



o 




O 






(J 








1-1 


o -a 

O c4 


M 










(4 


O 




O (J 


•n 



O o t/> u 



aB a|| aB a| O 13 c 



o o o 



p 55 C 



<4-« S 
CO 3 



8(1 



O 00 fN \£> 00 



ss e 



MO tO (O 



00 Cl 

a. a. 



\D 


00 en 


vO to Ol 




r- r^ 


r- r- r- 


m 


m m 


w ui in 



r- co oi — • 

a. a. c a 



t-t *-• 

rt o 

-1 H 



£<§] 



81 



Tables IV-3 and IV-4 represent , an example of data concerned with the 
characteristics of, and possible pollution implications for, livestock 
operations as interpreted from aerial photography. Characteristics noted 
directly include type of confinement, range of slope in immediate vicinity 
of buildings, and type of manure storage. Animal population per operation 
according to size class is presented as an average of data recorded as 
interpreted. Distances of buildings or confinement facilities from the 
nearest runoff channel, the nearest stream or lake, the nearest municipal 
road, and the nearest settlement of four or more houses are presented 
as numbers of operations within a range of distance. 

Proximity of livestock operation facilities to water channels, 
municipal roads and residential; areas provide information 
which can be of value in assessing the present or potential 
water, air or aesthetic pollution problem associated with a 
particular livstock farm. 

Comparison of the livestock operation location data (Maps IV-6 
IV-7, IV-8 and IV-9) and the soil potential for pollutant tran- 
sfer to water systems data (See Section I) provides information 
concerning the relationship of livestock wastes and potential 
pollution problems. For example, although the livestock 
distribution is uniform for the portion of the Nith River Basin 
covered by 1972 photography, the soil potential for pollution 
transfer varies from Group 3 ( high potential to transfer 
pollutants to ground water, low potential to surface water) 
to Group 1 ( high potential to transfer pollutants to surface 
water and low potential to ground water). Possible pollution 
implications for livestock farms in the two soil areas may be 
quite different. 

Information as to the type of confinement or shelter facility 
and the type of manure storage can be used to note present 
management practices and trends in specific areas or as related 
to agricultural regions of Southern Ontario. For example, it 
is of interest to note that in the southern part of the Nith 
River basin, in 1972 there were no dairy farms which had adopted 
the liquid manure storage facility, although this type of 
storage is becoming more common in Ontario. 



82 



OOO O O • OOO OOO" 

O O O O O » OOO OOO05 

OOO O O • OOO OOO" 

v"?A V • * t v i A VIA 

o ° o 



o o o o © c 



o o 



1 z wz 



t/i 10 w« 



i 'iiH ' ? 1 5 1 31 



i a ss o i/> z o O ui Z O u 






s : s 



O O O O tj Z 



: 6z ' o zooi. 



i o o <_) z oou z 



^ S^^ O o - » ° - 









ooo o o c 



ooo o o 



■^T§3 5 






.3 £ 



-a « i4 
c -as 



4-< ,-1 

S «w _ 
o o c: 



83 



o o o • 

O O O ttj 

o o o • 



o o • 

O O Pi 

o o • 

>-> «n 2: 



o o o 
o o o 
o o o 



o o o 

O O o 

o o o 



o o o 
o o o 

i-* in m 



o o o 
o o o 

H 1T| l^| 



W w 2; to 



— e era .-« e 

O 0) -H • o <U 

t/iW JZ co wi 



l\O^HM(NH 



lo o o o o 



lo o o io o 



O l/> A "Z. LO , 



O LO A Z O LO Z 



,§■■- 



o 


rt 












h 






















n 


E 


£& 






















V. 


























jy- 



< rt « C 



ss 



a) *j «j 

a o rt 

U.HU 



84 



ANALYSIS OF THE PROJECT: 

Referring to the list of objectives of the project on page 61 
it can be generally concluded that these objectives were achieved. 
However, the objectives included a greater degree of analysis and 
interpretation of the data collected than was possible within the time 
and funds allotted. It may therefore be concluded that the potential 
usefulness of the data generated has by no means been exhausted. 

The application of the methodology used in this project was 
somewhat unique. Questionaire techniques are most often used for 
surveys or inventories of this type. It is therefore of interest to 
compare the results and resource demands of this approach with that 
which would probably have been necessary had a questionaire technique 
been used. Approximately $10,000 was spent on aerial photographs. To 
obtain the information for an equivalent number of large farms by 
enumeration, at least 100,000 questionaires would have to be mailed 
out at a cost of approximately $20,000. This assumes a return rate of 
207., which is common for such surveys, and allows for the fact that only 
about 207. of the farms in the area cah be considered 'large' in the 
context of this project. However, it is impossible to estimate how 
many of the questionaires returned would be from farm operations which 
would be of interest to this inventory either because of size or because 
of location. Extensive follow-up checks would therefore be necessary 
to ensure that the largest and most significant operations had not been 
omitted. Consultation with local .agricultural representatives would 
be required to estimate the value and significance of the returns; and it 
is worthwhile to note here that, at the planning stage of this project, 
Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food Extension Service Representatives 
indicated that there would probably be an unwillingness to participate in 
such consultations should they be requested. 

Although data storage and retrieval costs would be similar if either 
enumeration or airphoto techniques were used, the technical manpower 
requirements would be different. The project used approximately 1.3 
man years of technical manpower, plus training, supervision and 
consultation. The total time taken to complete the selection, 



H r > 



interpretation and recording processes averaged approximately 30 minutes 
per farm recorded over the whole project. However, it must be emphasized 
that in the later phase of the project when only large farms (or smaller 
sized farms close to streams or urban areas) were being recorded, at 
least five times as many farms were looked at, and an evaluation made 
of their relation to the criteria for inclusion in the inventory. Thus 
the average time per farm looked at is closer to 5 minutes, which compares 
favourably with the time needed to read and evaluate returns from a 
questionaire. Moreover, time is not wasted on farm operations which are 
clearly of no interest to an inventory of this type. 

The estimated number of animals in a set of buildings is based on 
the estimated capacity of these buildings. Except for situations where 
the farm is clearly unused, the data recorded represents the probable 
maximum capacity, and not the actual number of animals present. The 
number of animals of a given type housed in a given area will vary from 
farm to farm depending on the operator, and will vary at different times 
of the year. 

An advantage of the airphoto technique can also be cited as the 
ability to re-check and re-interpret any specific farm or region at any time. 
This permits the amendment of recorded data in the light of information or 
expertise which may become available at a later time. Interfarm comparisons 
may also be made with greater objectivity and confidence as similar criteria 
can be applied to each farm. Data such as distances from streams or roads 
can be compared with greater confidence if collected from airphotos than if 
only estimates made by different farm operators can be used. Considerable 
individual bias is therefore removed. 

A disadvantage of the approach used in this study, however, is the 
need for competent airphoto interpreters who are familiar with Canadian 
agricultural practices, and with the region being surveyed. Such 
interpreters are not always readily available. Another disadvantage is 
that the results are dependent upon the date of the photography. If the 
area is covered by photography taken at intervals several years apart, 
inter-area comparisons are impossible. 



86 



A further problem is that of interpretation differences between 
airphoto interpreters. Generally, large modern livestock facilities 
present few difficulties. However, old or converted buildings must 
be considered in the light of other factors (such as feed storage, 
vehicle tracks etc.). In these cases, interpretation becomes critical 
for accurate determinations. 

Some of the information requested on the interpretation forms, 
which are filled out by the interpreters, is liable to vary. Estimating 
the manure handling and storage facilities requires a thorough knowledge 
of farm practice. Liquid manure, if used, is usually clearly evident. 
However, the differences between solid (with bedding) and semi-solid 
( free stall) manure is dependant primarily on building type for 
interpretation. Ultimate disposal of manure is impossible to determine 
from photographs taken at only one date in the year. Measured 
distances to streams, roads, etc., usually present no difficulties, unless 
it is in determining what is a runoff channel ( intermittant flow) and 
what is a stream ( year round flow). 

The data presented on the maps and in the appendix are a good estimate 
of large livestock operations taken as a whole. If, however, individual 
farm sites are selected for further study, no detail should be taken 
from this report without further clarification of the operation charact- 
eristics from either ground checks or from very recent aerial photography. 



87 



REFERENCES 

Agriculture Canada Publications: 

Number 1451, 1971, Confinement Swine Housing 

Number 1442, (Section 4), 1973, Swine Production, Building 
and Equipment 

Number 1509, 1973, Broiler Raising in Canada 

Number 1404, 1969, Ventilation of Livestock Buildings 

Number 1358, 1968, Corn for Livestock and Poultry 

Number 1503, 1973, Engineering for Intensive Housing of 
Livestock 

Number 1390, 1969, Farm and Ranch Equipment for Beef Cattle 

Agriculture Canada, Canada Farm Building Plan Service - revised catalogues: 

Beef Cattle Housing and Equipment , 1970, catalogue of plans, 40 p. 

Dairy Cattle Housing and Equipment , 1968, catalogue of plans, 52 p. 

Agricultural & Rural Development Act Administration (ARDA), 1967-1969, 
Canada Land Inventory, Soil Capability for Agriculture : 
1:250,000 maps and related texts for Southern Ontario map 
sheets, Lands Directorate, Environment Canada. 

Bird, N.A. , (no date), Modern Poultry Buildings , Department of Agriculture 
and Food, Ontario, 

Canada Department of Agriculture; Ontario Department of Agriculture & Food, 
Ontario, (various years), Soil Survey reports and accompanying 
maps of counties in Southern Ontario. 

Canada Animal Waste Management Guide Committee (Canada Committee on 

Agricultural Engineering), 1972, Canada Animal Waste Management Guide . 

Chapman, L.J. and D.F. Putnam, 1966, The Physiography of Southern Ontario , 
University of Toronto Press, Toronto, 386 p. 

Clarke, J.H. , 1972, Problem Areas of Odour Pollution in the Livestock Industry , 
9 p., University of Guelph, unpublished. 

Department of Agriculture and Food, Ontario, (no date), Beef Husbandry in Ontario , 
Publication 509, 86 p. 



88 

McClellan, J.B. , L. Jersak, C.L.A. Hutton, 1968, A Guide to the Classification 
of Land Use for the Canada Land Inventory , 18 p., Lands Directorate, 
Environment Canada. 

Ryerson, R.A. , 1973, An Interpretation Training Package for the Remote 

Enumeration of Livestock in Southern Ontario , Applications Division, 
Canada Centre for Remote Sensing, Ottawa, unpublished. 

Ryerson, R.A. , 1974, An Investigation of Agricultural Data Collection from 

Aerial Photography : The Prediction of Land Use Change . (Unpublished, 
Ph.D. Thesis pending, Faculty of Environmental Studies, University of 
Waterloo, Waterloo, Ontario). 

Ryerson, R.A. and H.A. Wood, 1971, "Air Photo Analysis of Beef and Dairy Farming" , 
Photogrammetric Engineering, Feb. 1971, 157-169 p. 

Statistics Canada: 

User Summary Tapes, Agriculture, 1971 Census. 

United States Department of Agriculture, Miscellaneous Publications: 

Number 1129, Issued March 1969, 3-storey Broiler House 

Number 1120, Issued February 1969, Poultry House-floor Management 

Number 1218, Issued December 1971, Finishing Floor for 400 Pigs 

Number 1179, Issued October 1970, Farrowing House for Sows 

Number 1112, Issued January 1969, Farrowing and Growing Building for Hogs 

Number 1159, Issued January 1969, Farrowing House - tilt-up concrete 
construction 

Numbers 1117, 1134, 1137 



89 



APPENDICES 



Appendix I. Agricultural Regions 
and Representative 
Sub-basins 

Appendix IV. Airphoto Livestock 
Inventory Material 



APPENDIX I. 



<)l 



AGRICULTURAL AREA NO. 1 

Kent and Essex Cash-crop Clays 

1. Area Most of Essex County; Lambton County except the Northeast section; 

South and West Kent County 

2. Climate Climate 1 (West) 

2 2 

3. Size Area about 1,560 miles (4,040 km ) 

4. Soils Soils of Group V - high potential for contribution of 

pollutants to surface and ground water. Clays of the 

St. Clair Clay Plains. High capability restricted slightly 

by wetness (Class 2„). 
W 

5. Crops Corn, Soybeans - high density 

Small grains, Vegetables - moderate density 
Tobacco, Fruits, Hay - low density 

6. Livestock Hogs - moderate to high density 

Others - low density 

7. Other Regions Represented : A small area in Southwest Middlesex County; 

scattered areas along the shoreline of Huron County. 



REPRESENTATIVE SUB-WATERSHED NO. 1 

1. Location Big Creek tributary of the Thames River, at bridge 

Concession 9, West of Strangfield Intersection 
U.T.M. Zone 17 - 374,750 M. East 

- 4,672,100 M. North 

2. Area 20.7 miles 2 (53.7 km 2 ) 

3. Existing Gauging : None 

4. River Basin Thames River - Lands Directorate System 2GH-9 

- M.O.E. System - 1 



92 



AGRICULTURAL AREA NO. 2 
Norfolk Sands 

1. Area Norfolk County; Southwest Brant County; Northeast Oxford County 

2. Climate Climate 1 

2 7 

3. Size Area about 920 miles (2,382 km ) 

4. Soils Soils of Group III - high potential for contamination of 

ground water. Sands of the Norfolk Sand Plain. Capability 

moderate to low for most crops (2 , 3 , 4 ), some wetness 

limitations (5 tT ). 
W 

5. Crops Tobacco - high density 

Corn, Fruits - very variable in density 
Small grains - moderate density 
Soybeans, vegetables, hay - low density 

6. Livestock All livestock - low density 

7. Other Regions Represented : Small areas of tobacco grown on sands scattered 

through the southern part of the province. 



REPRESENTATIVE SUB-WATERSHED NO. 



1. Location North Branch, North Creek tributary of Big Creek. 

At Highway 3. 

U.T.M. Zone 17 - 539,400 M. East 

- 4,744,500 M. North 

2. Area 9.8 miles 2 (25.3 km 2 ) 

3. Existing Gauging : None 

4. River Basin Big Creek - Lands Directorate System 2GC-4 

- M.O.E. System - 6 



9 1 



AGRICULTURAL AREA NO. 3 

Middlesex Intensive Mixed- farming Clays 

1. Area Northeast Lambton County; Northwest Middlesex County; 

South Huron County; West Perth County; North Elgin County; 
South Oxford County 

2. Climate Climate 1 (West) 

2 2 

3. Size Area about 1,633 miles (4,230 km ) 

4. Soils Soils of Group I - high potential for contamination of 

surface water. Soils mainly clays and loams. Capability 
is high with some slope restrictions (1, 3 ). 

5. Crops Corn - high density 

Small grains, soybeans - moderate density 
Tobacco, fruits, vegetables, hay - low density 

6. Livestock Total Cattle, hogs - high density 

Others - low to moderate density 

7. Other Regions Represented : Scattered areas in Essex, Kent and Southern 

Middlesex Counties. 



REPRESENTATIVE SUB-WATERSHED NO. 3 

1. Location Little Ausable River at Second Bridge downstream of Elimville 

U.T.M. Zone 17 - 466,000 M. East 

- 4,795,400 M. North 

2. Area 23.8 miles 2 (61.8 km 2 ) 

3. Existing Gauging : Existing summer gauging station at Lucan - about 

8 miles downstream 

4. River Basin Ausable River - Lands Directorate System 2FF-5 

- M.O.E. System - 31 



')4 



AGRICULTURAL AREA NO. 4 
Wellington Dairy Farming Clays 

1. Area Central Wellington County; Northwest Waterloo County; 

East Perth County; North Oxford County 

2. Climate Climate 2 

2 2 

3. Size Area about 611 miles (1,532 km ) 

4. Soils Soil Group I - high potential for contamination of 

surface water. Mainly clays and loams of the Stratford 
and Dundalk Till Plains. High capability restricted 
somewhat by slope (Class 1, 3 ) 

5. Crops Small grains - high density 

Hay - moderate density 

Soybeans, corn, vegetables, fruits - low density 

Tobacco - none 

6. Livestock Dairy, hogs - high density 

Others - low to moderate density 

7. Other Regions Represented : Scattered areas in South Wellington County. 



REPRESENTATIVE SUB-WATERSHED NO. 4 

1. Location Canagagigue Creek - above Flordale at Wellington-Waterloo 

County line 

U.T.M. Zone 17 - 532,000 M. East 

- 4,834,700 M. North 

2. Area 7.3 miles 2 (18.9 km 2 ) 

3. Existing Gauging ; Existing Federal gauging Station at the same location. 

Good records. 

4. River Basin Grand River - Lands Directorate System 2GA-1 

- M.O.E. System - 10G 



95 



1. 


Area 


2. 


Climate 


3. 


Size 


4. 


Soils 



AGRICULTURAL AREA NO. 5 
Oxford-Waterloo Dairy Farming Loams 

Central Waterloo and Central Oxford Counties 

Climate 1 

2 2 

Area greater than 990 miles (2,564 km ) 

Area of Soil Group IV, Soil Group II and Group IV/II Complex. 
Loams of the Waterloo Hills/Oxford Till Plain regions. Low 
to moderate potential for pollutant transfer to either surface 
or ground water. Mostly high capability (Class 1) 

5. Crops Corn - high density 

Small grains, hay - moderate density 

Soybeans, vegetables, fruit trees - low density 

6. Livestock Dairy, hogs - high density 

Others - low to moderate density 

7. Other Regions Represented : Small regions in Middlesex, Elgin and Oxford 

Counties. 



REPRESENTATIVE SUB-WATERSHED NO. 5 

1. Location Unnamed tributary of the Middle Thames River, at First Bridge, 

upstream from the Middle Thames, approximately 3 miles West 

of Embro 

U.T.M. Zone 17 - 503,000 M. East 

- 4,775,000 M. North 

2. Area 12.0 miles 2 (31.1 km 2 ) 

3. Existing Gauging : None 

4. River Basin Thames - Lands Directorate System - 2GD-3 

- M.O.E. System - 27E 



<>(■ 



1. 


Area 


2. 


Climate 


3. 


Size 


4. 


Soils 



AGRICULTURAL AREA NO. 6 
Huron Mixed Farming 

North Huron County; South Bruce County 

Climate 2 

2 7 
Area about 786 miles (2,036 km ) 

Soils of Group III/IV Complex. Mainly soils with high 
potential for transfer of pollutants to ground water 
(sandy, organic and swampy regions) surrounded by soils 
of low potential for pollutant transfer to surface or 
ground water. Soils mainly sands and loams of Horseshoe 
Moraines (West) physiographic regions. 

Capability ranges from high to extremely low because of 
wetness, steepness or stoniness (1, 2 , 4 , 6 ) 

5. Crops Small grains, hay - moderate density 

Corn, fruit, vegetables - low density 

6. Livestock All livestock - low to moderate density 

7. Other Regions Represented : In conjunction with Sub-Watershed No. 4, a 

large area of the upland region including soils of Groups I, 
II, III and IV 



REPRESENTATIVE SUB-WATERSHED NO. 6 

1. Location Teeswater River East of Village of Teeswater, at N/S Highway 

2 miles East of Highway 4 

2. Area 2o.2 miles 2 (52.4 km 2 ) 

3. Existing Gauging : None. Water Quality Station (M.O.E. ) planned for 

downstream of Teeswater 

4. River Basin Saugeen - Lands Directorate System 2FC-6 

- M.O.E. System - 36A 



<)7 



AGRICULTURAL AREA NO. 7 



Lake Ontario Shores 



1. Area Most of Northumberland; Most of Durham; South Peterborough; 

South Ontario Counties 

2. Climate Climate 1 (East) 

2 ? 

3. Size Greater than 2,000 miles (5,180 km ) 

4. Soils Soils of Groups I and III, with a smaller area of Group IV, 

includes soils with a high potential for contribution to 
surface water, soils with a high potential for pollution of 
ground water and a small area of soils with low potential 
for surface and ground. 

Mainly sands, sandy loams, with some shallow soils. 
Capability ranges from high to low, with soil and slope 
limitations. 

5. Crops Small grains, hay - moderate to high density 

Tobacco - moderate density 

Corn - low density 

6. Livestock All livestock - moderate density 

7. Other Regions Represented : None 



REPRESENTATIVE SUB-WATERSHED NO. 7 

1. Location Ganaraska River, at bridge over Northwest branch, North of 

Osaca 

U.T.M. Zone 17 - 705,200 M. East 

- 4,876,800 M. North 

2. Area 15.8 miles 2 (40.8 km 2 ) 

3. Existing Gauging : Existing Federal recording gauge, continuous operation. 

(Water Survey of Canada). 

4. River Basin Ganaraska Creek - Lands Directorate System 2HD-6 

- M.O.E. System - 24 



9H 



AGRICULTURAL AREA NO. 8 
Perth Poorly Drained Clays 

1. Area Central Perth County 

2. Climate Climate 2 

2 9 

3. Size Area about 108 miles (280 km ) 

4. Soils Soils of Group V - high potential for contamination of 

surface and ground water. Poorly drained clays of the 
Stratford Till Plain. Capability is reduced by poor 
drainage (Class 2) 

5. Crops Small grains - high density 

Hay - moderate density 

Corn, vegetables, soybeans, fruits - low density 

Tobacco - none 

6. Livestock Dairy, hogs - moderate to high density 

Others - low to moderate density 

1 • Other Regions Represented : In conjunction with Sub-Watershed No. 3, 
will represent Area 17. 



REPRESENTATIVE SUB-WATERSHED NO. 8 

1. Location Boyle Drain at first road East of Highway 23, South Branch, 

2-3 miles Northeast of Monkton 
U.T.M. Zone 17 - 497,100 M. East 

- 4,828,400 M. North 

2. Area 14.9 miles (38.5 km 2 ) 

3 " Existing Gauging : Boyle Drain has Federal gauging downstream at Atwood 
(about 5 miles downstream) 

4. River Basin Maitland River (Middle Maitland) - Lands Directorate System 2FE-3 

- M.O.E. System - 34C 



AGRICULTURAL AREA NO. 9 
Escarpment Sands 

1. Area North Brant County; Southeast Waterloo; South and East 

Wellington; Northwest Halton; Northwest Peel; Southeast 
Dufferin; Central Simcoe 

2. Climate Climate 1 (East) 

2 2 

3. Size Area about 1,292 miles (3,346 km ) 

4. Soils Soils of Group III - high potential for contribution of 

pollutants to ground water. Soils are mainly sands and 
permeable loams of the Horseshoe Moraines physiographic 
region. Capability is medium to low, mainly due to 
steepness or stoniness (Class 2 , 4 , 5 ) 

5. Crops Corn, small grains - moderate to high density 

Vegetables, hay - low to moderate density 
Soybeans, fruits,, tobacco - low density 

6. Livestock Beef - moderate to high density 

Hogs - variable 

Others - low to moderate density 

7. Other Regions Represented : None. 



REPRESENTATIVE SUB-WATERSHED NO. 9 

1. Location West Humber River upstream of Cedar Mills - at first road 

West of Ballycroy about 7 miles upstream of Cedar Mills. 
U.T.M. Zone 17 - 589,100 M. East 

- 4,869,000 M. North 

2. Area 21.9 miles 2 (56.7 km 2 ) 

3. Existing Gauging ; Existing Federal gauging station at Cedar Mills 

4. River Basin Humber River - Lands Directorate System 2HC-4 

- M.O. E. System - 20 



100 



2. 


Climate 


3. 

4. 


Size 

Soils 



AGRICULTURAL AREA NO. 10 
Haldimand Clays 



1. Area Most of Haldimand County; South Lincoln County; Northwest 
Welland County; South Wentworth County; East Brant County 

Climate 1 (East), South of Niagara Escarpment 

2 2 

Area about 1,171 miles (3,033 km ) 

Soils are of Group I - high runoff pollution potential. 
Clays of the Haldimand Clay Plain. Capability high to 
moderate with limitations including wetness (Class 1, 2 ) 

5. Crops Corn - moderate to high density 

Small grains, hay - moderate density 

Soybeans, fruit trees - low density 

Vegetables, small fruits (grapes) - variable from 
low to high density 

Tobacco - none 

6. Livestock Hogs, poultry - high density 

Others - moderate to low density 

7. Other Regions Represented : Small area in Norfolk near Lake Erie shores. 



REPRESENTATIVE SUB-WATERSHED NO. 10 

1. Location North Creek branch of Twenty Mile Creek, at first bridge 

upstream from Twenty Mile Creek. (About 2 miles Southeast 

of Smithville). 

U.T.M. Zone 17 - 620,100 M. East 

- 4,770,000 M. North 

2 2 

2. Area Area is 14.0 miles (36.2 km ) 

3. Existing Gauging : None 

4. River Basin Twenty Mile Creek - Lands Directorate System 2HA-2 

- M.O.E. System - 14 



101 



AGRICULTURAL AREA NO. 11 
Peel Clays 

1. Area East Halton; East Peel; Central York; South Simcoe 

2. Climate Climate 1 (East), East of Niagara Escarpment 

2 2 

3. Size Area about 820 miles (2,120 km ) 

4. Soils Soils are of Group I - high potential for runoff pollution. 

Clays of the Peel Plain and South Slopes physiographic regions. 
Capability is high, except where restricted by slope or 
wetness (Class 1, 3 ) 

5. Crops Hay, small grains, corn - moderate density 

Soybeans, fruits and vegetables - low density 
Tobacco - none 

6. Livestock Total cattle, dairy - moderate to high density 

Hogs, poultry, beef - low density 

7. Other Regions Represented : None. 



REPRESENTATIVE SUB-WATERSHED NO. 11 

1. Location West Humber River above Wildfield 

U.T.M. Zone 17 - 602,500 M. East 

- 5,752,600 M. North 

2. Area 11.6 miles 2 (29.2 km 2 ) 

3. Existing Gauging : Existing Federal gauging at Wildfield 

4. River Basin Humber River - Lands Directorate System 2HC-3 

- M.O.E. System - 20 



102 



AGRICULTURAL AREA NO. 12 
Shield Fringe 

1. Area Central Hastings; South Lennox & Addington; South Frontenac Counties 

2. Climate Climate 1 (East) 

2 2 

3. Size Area about 928 miles (2,404 km ) 

4. Soils Soil Groups III and IV - soils with a high potential for 

contamination of ground water together with those with a 
low potential for pollution of either surface or ground 
water. Loams of the upper Napanee Plain at the fringe of 
the Canadian Shield. Some soils are shallow over bedrock. 
Capability varies from high to low depending on stoniness 
or shallowness (Class 1 to Class 6) 

5. Crops Hay - high density 

Corn, small grains - moderate density 
Fruits, vegetables - low to moderate density 
Soybeans - very low density 
Tobacco - none 

6. Livestock Dairy - moderate to high density 

Total Cattle - moderate density 
Beef, hogs, poultry - low density 

7. Other Regions Represented : Scattered shallow loams along the fringe of the 

Shield and in Prince Edward County. 



REPRESENTATIVE SUB-WATERSHED NO. 12 

1. Location Wilton Creek upstream of the East-West Highway through Harrowsmith 

U.T.M. Zone 18 - 366,200 M. East 

- 4,917,800 M. North 

2. Area 7.4 miles 2 (19.1 km 2 ) 

3. Existing Gauging : Existing M.O.E. gauge at bridge one-half mile West of 

Harrowsmith 

4. River Basin Wilton Creek - Lands Directorate System 2HM-4 

- M.O.E. System - 56 



103 



AGRICULTURAL AREA NO. 13 
Kent and Essex Sands 

1. Area South Essex County; Central and East Kent; Southwest Elgin County 

2. Climate Climate 1 

2 2 

3. Size Area about 316 miles ( 2,113 km ) 

4. Soils Soils are Groups III and IV - sands and sands over clay, with 

high potential for ground water pollutant transfer, or low 
potential to either surface or ground water. Capability is 
restricted somewhat by the soil texture (Class 2 , 3 ) 

5. Crops Corn, soybeans, vegetables, fruits - high density 

Tobacco - moderate density 
Small grains, hay - low density 

6. Livestock Hogs, beef - moderate density 

All others - low density 

7. Other Regions Represented : Scattered sands and sands overlying clays, 

throughout Southern Ontario 



REPRESENTATIVE SUB-WATERSHED NO. 13 

1. Location Hillman Creek, Northeast branch at first bridge upstream from 

the tidal section. 

U.T.M. Zone 17 - 375,600 M. East 

- 4,657,100 M. North 

2 2 

2. Area 8.9 miles (22.9 km ) 

3. Existing Gauging : None 

4. River Basin Hillman Creek - Lands Directorate System 2GH-9 

- M.O.E. System - 1 



1 1)4 



AGRICULTURAL AREA NO. 14 
Bruce Clays 

1. Area Central and West Bruce County; North Grey County 

2. Climate Climate 1 (North) 

2 ? 

3. Size Area about 877 miles (2,271 km ) 

4. Soils Soil Groups I and I/V Mixture. High potential to transfer 

pollutants to surface water, and Group I/V Mixture also to 
ground water - clays and loams. Capability high except where 
reduced by wetness or steepness (Class 1, 2 , 3 , 3 ). 

5. Crops Hay - moderate density 

Corn, small grains, soybeans, fruits and vegetables - low density 
Tobacco - none 

6. Livestock Beef - moderate density 

Other livestock - low density 

7. Other Regions Represented : Scattered soil complexes in Northern Bruce 

and Grey Counties. 



REPRESENTATIVE SUB- WATERSHED NO. 14 

1. Location Little Mill Creek tributary of the Mill Creek branch of the 
Saugeen River, at bridge on 3rd Concession line, East of 
North Bruce 



2. Area 



10.0 miles 2 (25.8 km 2 ) 



3. Existing Gauging : None 

4. River Basin Saugeen River - Lands Directorate System 2FC-4 

- M.O.E. System - 36A 



105 



AGRICULTURAL AREA NO. 15 
Elgin Mixed Faming 

1. Area East Elgin County 

2. Climate Climate 1 

2 9 

3. Size Area about 257 miles (666 km ) 

4. Soils Mixed area of soil Groups I, III, IV and V. Potential for 

pollution of both surface and ground water. Capability 
variable (Class 1 to Class 4 ). 

5. Crops Corn - moderate to high density 

Small grains - moderate density 
Vegetables, fruits, hay - low density 
Soybeans, tobacco - low to moderate density 

6. Livestock Hogs, poultry - low to moderate 

Beef, dairy - low density 

1 • Other Regions Represented : Scattered areas throughout Southern Ontario 



REPRESENTATIVE SUB- WATERSHED NO. 15 

1. Location Little Jerry Creek tributary of the Big Otter Creek, at 

Highway 3, North of Bayham Village 
U.T.M. Zone 17 - 512,000 M. East 

- 4,736,000 M. North 

2. Area 15.5 miles 2 (40.1 km 2 ) 

3 - Existing Gauging : Existing M.O.E. periodic discharge station at site. 
Two other similar stations within the watershed 

4. River Basin Big Otter Creek - Lands Directorate System 2GC-4 

- M.O.E. System - 5 



106 



AGRICULTURAL AREA NO. 16 
Niagara Fruit Belt 

1. Area Niagara Fruit Belt 

2. Climate Climate 1 

2 2 

3. Size About 112 miles (290 km ) 

4. Soils Soils of Groups III and V, sands and clays. Soils with 

high potential for transfer of pollutants to ground water 
and to both ground and surface waters. Capability Class 2 
and 3, with some wetness restrictions. 

5. Crops Fruits, vegetables - high density 

All others - low density or non-existant 

6. Livestock Hogs, poultry - high density 

Other livestock - low density 

7. Other Regions Represented : Fruit tree growing area on sandy soil near 

Collingwood, Thornbury and Meaford - North Grey County. 



REPRESENTATIVE SUB-WATERSHED NO. 16 

1. Location Unnamed Creek, West of Vineland, draining into Lake Ontario 

U.T.M. Zone 17 - 6,229,900 M. East 
- 4,782,400 M. North 

2. Area 1.2 miles 2 (3.1 km 2 ) 

3. Existing Gauging : None 

4. River Basin West Lincoln Lakefront - Lands Directorate System 2HA-1 

- M.O.E. System - 14 



107 



1. 


Area 


2. 


Climate 


3. 


Size 


4. 


Soils 



AGRICULTURAL AREA NO. 17 
Perth Mixed Clays 

Central Perth County 

Climates 1 and 2 

2 2 
About 332 miles (860 km ) 

Soils of Groups I and V, Mixed -- high potential to 
contribute pollutants to surface water or to both 
surface and ground waters. Mainly clays of Stratford 
Till Plain. Capability is high except where reduced 
by wetness (Class 1, 2 ) 

5. Crops Small grains - high density 

Corn, hay - moderate density 
Fruit, vegetables - low density 
Tobacco, soybeans - none 

6. Livestock Hogs - moderate to high density 

All others - moderate density 

7. Other Regions Represented : None 



REPRESENTATIVE SUB-WATERSHED NO. 17 

None. 

The mixture of Group I and V soils occurring in this 
area can be represented by a combination of those 
studies being carried out on Group I soils in Area No. 3, 
and on Group V soils in Area No. 8. The climatic 
conditions and agricultural land uses in these areas 
are sufficiently similar to allow such representation. 



108 



AGRICULTURAL AREA NO. 18 

Clay Plains of Lake Ontario Shores 

1. Area Parts of Prince Edward, South Hastings, South Lennox & 

Addington Counties 

2. Climate Climate 1 (East) 

2 ? 

3. Size About 336 miles (870 km ) 

4. Soils Soils of Group V, clays of the Napanee Clay Plain. 

High potential for transfer of pollutants to both 

surface and ground waters. Capability low due to 

wetness (Class 3 TT ) 
W 

5. Crops Hay, pasture - high density 

Corn, small grains - low density 
Tobacco, soybeans - none 

6. Livestock Predominantly dairy 

7. Other Regions Represented : None 



REPRESENTATIVE SUB-WATERSHED NO. 18 

None. 

The small area of low intensity agriculture represented 
by this region was assigned a low priority, and did not 
warrant selection of a representative watershed. 



109 



AGRICULTURAL AREA NO. 19 
Saugeen Uplands 

la Area Southeast Grey County; Northwest Dufferin County; 
Northeast Wellington County 

2. Climate Climate 2 

2 2 

3. Size Area about 335 miles (868 km ) 

4. Soils Soils of Groups II, III and IV - complexed with muck and 

swampy areas. Mainly mixed loams and sands with either a 
low or moderate potential for pollutant transfer, or high 
potential" for transfer to ground water. Located on the 
Dundalk Till Plain, Capability high or limited by wetness 
(Class 1, 2 W ) 

5. Crops Hay, small grains - moderate density 

Corn, vegetables - low density 
Soybeans, tobacco, fruits - none 

6. Livestock All livestock - low density 

7. Other Regions Represented : Similar soils in North Perth County. 



REPRESENTATIVE SUB-WATERSHED NO. 19 

None. 

The low intensity agriculture carried on in this region 
did not warrant its inclusion as an agricultural study 
site. Area 6 of this study Is representative of low 
intensity agriculture, and is similar to this area in 
many ways. 



1 10 



AGRICULTURAL AREA NO. 20 
Bruce Peninsula 

1. Area Bruce Peninsula 

2. Climate Climate 1 

2 T 

3. Size Greater than 500 miles (1,295 km ) 

4. Soils Shallow loams overlying bedrock, soil Group III and 

high potential for pollutant transfer to ground water. 
Capability mixed, including many unusable areas. 
(Class 2 W , 3 W , 7*) 

5. Crops All crops - low density 

6. Livestock All livestock - low density 

7. Other Regions Represented : None 



REPRESENTATIVE SUB-WATERSHED NO. 20 

This area will not be included in the agricultural 
study due to its extremely low intensity agriculture. 



Ill 



1. 


Area 


2. 


Climate 


3. 


Size 


4. 


Soils 



AGRICULTURAL AREA NO. 21 
Holland Marsh 

Holland - Bradford Marsh (Southeast Simcoe County, 
Northwest York County) 

Climate 1 

Small 

Artificially drained organic soils (muck), high capability. 
Soils of Group I - high potential for contribution of 
pollutants to surface water. 

5. Crops High vegetable density 

6. Livestock None 

7. Other Regions Represented : Other artificially drained muck soils where 

vegetables are grown - Eriean, Leamington Peninsula, etc. 



REPRESENTATIVE SUB- WATERSHED NO. 21 
None 



112 



APPENDIX IV. 



113 



APPENDIX IV - 1 



All photographs commercially available from: 

Aerial Photography 

Ministry of Natural Resources 

Government of Ontario 

Whitby Block, 

Toronto 



All photographs available for viewing on location: 

1966 material Photograph Library 

Ministry of Natural Resources 
Government of Ontario 
Whitby Block, 
Toronto 

1971 and 1972 material 

Room 3002, Neatby Building, 
Agriculture Canada, 
Research Branch, 
Government of Canada, 
Ottawa 



NOTE: Map IV- 1 and Map IV- 1 A 



114 





O 






OH 


o 

1- 




< 


z 


< 

1 


o 


UI 

> 
■z. 


> 






^~ 




—m 


Q. 
< 


cc 
111 


O 

1- 
< 


> 


X 


cc 






u 
a. 
o 




o 






CO 


o 
o 

l- 
co 

LJ 

> 



co - i: 



1 




115 



APPF.NDIX IV 



1) Project Information Sheet 



ENGINEERING RESEARCH SERVICE & SOIL RESEARCH INSTITUTE - CD. A. 

1974 



1. 



2. Photo # 



3. Map sheet number , 

4. Enumeration district , 

5. Enumeration area , 

6. U.T.M. zone 

7. Easting (metres) , 

8. Northing (metres) | , 

9. Watershed # (Lands Directorate System) | 

10. Livestock type I . I 

[OlJ Dairy,' 13 ' 50 Beef (mixed ages ) , '■ ' ;E1 Steers ,' E] ' ; 
E3 p igs. 'O' • B Poultry," V; E3 Sheep, '0 ■ ; 
(07] Dairy and/or beef.'O"; |QS] Beef and/or pigs,'#'; 
E2 Mixed (undifferenciated), '© ' ; Hq] Horses,' '; 
fTTI Other animals, ' ▼' ; [TJ ?(to be investigated), ' ^' ; 
,, „. , ... , r , . . .1 "I 



1 



Size class 

Dairy 

Beef or steers 

Pigs 2 
Poultry 
Sheep 
Horses 









CD 


a 


m 


0-25 


25-75 


>75 


ers 0-50 


50-150 


>150 


0-100 


100-300 


>300 


small 


medium 


large 


0-150 


150-450 


>450 


0-25 


25-75 


>75 ■ 



D 



D 



13. Confinement 
[T] Covered only; L2J Covered with outs,ide feeders; 
0] Covered with outside range; ENo cover 

14. Manure handling and storage I I 

E Solid with bedding; semi-sol id; E liquid; ?; 

15. Slope of ground in vicinity of buildings 

[Q Flat (0-5%); Q]Sloping (5-107.); LI] Steep O107.) 

16. Distance to most probable runoff receiving channel, 
gulley or drain (feet) 



□ 



17. Distance to most probable runoff receiving lake, L 
river or stream (feet) |_ 

18. Distance to nearest public road or highway (ft^ [_ 

19. Distance to nearest urban development (4 houses +) , _ 
if less than 1 mile |_ 



Comments : 



Footnotes : 1. For mixed operations, use number calculated for 1st. animal type 
2. By judgement - calculation of numbers usually impossible 



0121-9.0 



116 



APPENDIX IV - 3 

Measurement* Tables prepared for the purpose of livestock enumeration in 
Southern Ontario 

1. Table 1A - Conventional Dairy Barns 
Table IB - Loose Dairy Operation 

2. Table 2 - Steers 

3. Table 3 - Hogs 

4. Table 4 - Poultry (Chickens) 

*Measurement Units on all tables refer to .005 general purpose scale 
on the Bausch § Lomb measuring magnifier reticular with measurements 
taken using 1:15,840 scale photography. 



H < 



sO 00 C-J 



in in m 


in iA 


3 r- ■ 


3 • 


O • CO 


O CO 



117 



JZ 3 

JJ 

00 •£> 



M M3PT" 



-JUtMSCOOOCNfl 



m-jm^or^coo^Of-ifM 



U.8 



co-j 1 oio-— 'r~-rNioOvto v »A'— , ^ rs 'r--rnCT^»j o »o ^-i r-~ n oo -j 



<t CN O CO •£> "1 l 

O iD (\l l~~ CO s ' 

o o* o co eo r- i 



• m<frsJOco*C)iAm^-'o>r-mj , <N 

ito<iO>Ci-iM^(ji'no>OMCo>J 



i,_ 1 ,_.,_._ 1 ,_ 1 ,_IOOCiOOO 
I CO 'J D \D N CO >J O *0 M CO <t 



cninr->cooc N 'f , ^ |/, it-~cooc > Jfninr-.coocMr~iu-ii^eo 

^0\orviOiri^'r~ncT'\0(Nco^O\Ono'^Hr^ro 
co co r- r 



vo*o>ci'i^<f'3<f^nnN( 



coNino'NioaiMvDO'fjiOffnioofOvoonh 

\OWO-i'l!NtDsf--NnO*WC>-^MIO<jHNn 

r— c*j r— fMconcon(Cnco>JC-J(>vfCM'io i 'i 
(T'OMCf'nNcoinHcO'Jr- <r-.^or-<r>or^m 
vO<0\ominin^f-j<tririi^NNc>irtHH 

o^vomoi*-f r ior-<t>— 'co^r'JOvoojo^iDn 

innNoovco^^^M^CMOMn^nH 
mmm<j<J-jromrocMCM(Mi-i— . — i 

-d'<j i ^mmiOv£i^r^r^r--cococoo*CT'0 
Or^-J'-'cou*^<»o>£inor--J^HcoiAM 

\OcoocNu"ir-e?><— ir-imr*o^<N<f\Oco 
-Cf.— lOxOCIOf-u-lfNOvOCli— IC0""ICM 
-d--d-nmr-if , ~itNcMCMi-«^-ti-i^-i 

cMvoo-tfr»-'-HU">o-*mr*-i-tu"ico<N\o 

CTi^D-J'-JcO\Droocou^r*ior~*i'icM 
npinnNNMNH- ihh 

cNr-mco-d , o" , >^Jv£)fMeofnCT'-a i 



c r> <)-cNOcoiAro-HOO<tcM 

HINCMMCMHpJHH 



— ioooor-*ciAm<tncs*i 

^MOtO>OvfNOIO^-Ji 
MOKNHHHHH 



CN CM CM I 



lOOCOf— vOU-l-JfOi 



- vc m <f n i 



OsfCO^vOO-JCON'OO-JO'WvOO-Jffl' 



■£> O -* 00 C 



119 

o n n * o r* -» O * tviom © © m © O (M * O — *T O Q (MOO O © r* DO« * o m -J O -J cm o m O © —« CO O © 

— a- <c nam m r* © r- * r* o m -j o -j — cm m co -i cm m * — — e o e oom iuh m i— o m * * r- m m a; -3 o 

— — m n in m * ^ n »< m o «- o» -Mn hou -a* - '0»cmoocm — ■■■p•^cMmcM<-lln(M-Tr- 
r- r> m «j -tf * cm — © O to m r- m * .» cm o — o m o * * >o -3- o -a w m --en* ^m o * m w n»« — * o einn 

— co * m r- cm m * o * -T m coo— 1 o n o n o-l n o> O m eo r* r- r- m omo o -or * nn n -j — co * o in r> a> i>< 

—■ nn cm *» co * -3> © — mo -— o i-i —•lorn — r* »» »i <o * — or- 1 1 o o cm — -- • m n in cm m -j <nj m * 

■j-j ^j r- m © m © CM m r- * — -I — O H lO F* t— ■ O ^ <f F\ rt f^ P* r^ (O f*J ^ m * * CM o — T © -3" CM m o O N n CO or** 

h co v> m * — ini'i h * m m co n co o o -j h co o m r* * m m cm * -7 r* w in n o — > o> p- ^ m m r- — in >o ^j .o -j c-j 

-. i — m cm -3* m * -» I*- r- i m o — m — — -c <-j — r* -» « cc m — or* cm o © «noo (m ,— cm n n n n n in 

^o — i i^j cm cm -j con r* m in o -j o fy f* r* -3r mot* o o o io -j cm cm m ^ co -3* r* in m o — r* — r- © ^ mo* O O O 

— - a v m m * o -J *t mi * cm o coo* o* to h — ■ -l:. ■£: mm — -r m r* «o h n r* o r* o r— cm h i/> eo cm m m -j - — - co * o m 

— — m cm -3 1 n« -T r- -t ©> r* m O »h * cm — r* m Mcoin — © * — a- © cm o o cm — — i cm >m cm cm m »» 

m © r- — * ^ r* m — (Nn co co <n m -t O cm c> co O m © © — mm * -? o cm cm r- co o 4 net*--* or*© .n * m o ^j '^ 

— i r> sf mmo -r m >ar « m co r* o m or*© © -3h cm cm cm r* -3t o cm in » r* r* * — © -a * o — " — -ioMn or*© in m m 

— -J cm cm »j mm m r* -vr co — mo — * — — r* m — r- »3> — © * — or* c^joo N o o cj h n n na 

in in h o»* f *i m\0~* on\o mr-p* ono mcoo o~Jt»j in c J .-.min >oon- — • ii aj o — o i-ji*-i-i iO(M*n -mm 

--r-«3- rimeo 4 <n n >co«o p-r-o o<irt<t O c o> tvoo fnr-.r~. mm— i *fim coor- cr to ^ -i m co cm n cn -i o >o 

h -jc-j c^j^ w W mp- -Sto f- ■ m on ■j\Oi-> h\on — r~- -z --com —icT'sd — i oi a) c^ow> nmm cmim cm 

^tviio omcM nr-co too** c-ino r*m* — • co <*' •£> o o - o*^ 10 in*-- c co n. ^■—.n eomo- n*m r-. c- -- nf^co 

hmi fsl^jr* -a-p-io m (r ■* r**to on - ■ oom i-icoeo nmcM ^-1*1* m co> r*r*n co<f* O--0 H cO 4* n <0 I* 

-- h m cm-j- cm m n c -J co --ino» —tino --*cvi — r- <--.-- r-- ^r --co* --or* p*oo pjoo cm--»m 

in ffi o r*0— --o>oj ineocsi » co m n co >I r-r*-* >-ii*.m inr** cr >o >c n-i*r* *o* --*to mmo> om© mm© 

p-**n f\in* ■joe mr*c*j \o*jm co--to ^ co ^ --m-^ w w n no*© mom onm cooo or*c*J o*T* r*j*no* 

-- ^-<*j c-j m n in n* *tr* ^3>o ^^ o --*— - m 10 n r—r*<r --torn — ■ <? & m ^ co <noo c*jpm© 

(n*m *no oom cic*-o *n* OO'-' n mo us-*-- o--r* nr*<M .o ,t r* o--cm ncoco f*inn o--co rico'n 

-1OM r>jmm *TOt* m*o *nrM 000m o*r~ C)*^© cmooj ^-*m j n in *00 r**rj com in oor* — ■£> o 

-- --CM CMin CMIO mi* "tfr* ~J CO -• m O — ■ y;- — — : iO r-J — 1 r- <-> — 1 ro ""' — n j^ ~ O- f*- r-J C ID i"J o o 

n n o» m^CT 1 CO--0 --ino* noco *mco cjir*co <nj--co -J -r co r*cor* oc*jr* m** *or* to<rr* --co* <TtNi* 

w* r— cm #^c*> CM^cf miin mr* ^j co --mc* --mo --*■-- --r*m --r*^ --com *-<co* h o n> tMoo* 

cmo<t <t--co *<*i<"-i eomr- o-a 1 -- mm* m*o f-.r*..* o- co o- --c>m -*or* *--<m cOcm* omo CM^tm mm©. 

--*-- cm cm cm mco*T <l^-m ^oor- r**co cOcmo c* co h © *f cm <*»o-» mr*m ^mr* mt>co i*-mo co---- tT>r*t*t 

_i 1- cm »-m fM^ m,in m* -*co *ti7>— «mo— '*----*tM--r*m--r~<T— co*»-'0^r*"rfO>eo 

— 1 co cc m*r* -r *r >c *cmui co o C otom --*cm cm*)--- >Jimo *Oo r*eor* 0>*^o --mm fMm*r *t — m m o n 

—•mo cm---- c*\r*fN ^mm mo** *^m coo* o*r* o m co --coco cMmo> moo mm-- *--<n r*r*m co«n^ 

— mm cmo* mmo -JOm mmr* *--o r~*-j co — r- o*-- o~-*t »-<*co cm n •- mr*j 4 cm co mr*-- oom 

— mo (Mi-io m-o-- -j cm h u*. r* — . *mcM r- co cm co*tcm oom — mm CMOm m**r -»•—** mr*^ *Nin p*f-im 

-- — cm — m cm^ 1 iNin m* «»>r* <reo *TO --mo--*— — * cm — r* m — r* -j h co n — co* 

Ocmco o-»* — * ^ — ocn * — o cm n co mm^ moo** 4 o<m -Jno *T*teo mr** mo-» *mcm * -j ■ © r*«co 

—iino 1 cm«-o mmo *I30 t" * c £■ — to r**co co — to o^-to ©imco — r*r* rgcMr*. <ir*r* <Tf^r* meor* *m* 

— — --cm cMrt cm<,' mm to* -Jr* 41 -mo> - mo--*--— *cm— r*m--r*<Ti— eo«n 

Oocm otom otor* or*o jv\on o * m omr* co-ao eo-»m comm comco cocmo co — m co — m cooco r*o»- 

n»o — o to <M-»r* mor* >»<?* mom *-j<t r*o*r co-Jn ootM o^»— — o— (n^o moo -j -1 co m cos 

0*0 co n ■} r~o«" r~mco *csim in coim mmo st — * mto-* cm^— (*i — co — r*m o <j cm 000 o** eomri 

*TO — or* cMm* mco*t ^mm mr*cM *cmo r*r*o co — to o*r* o — m — m>j i*iom mm— moo <I<TO 

— r-tM -«m N4 CMir* n«D c-i* -»r* ^co— mo— mo— *— -j*im— *m— r*m 

co n -j f*r*t^ *om <r <r •o mr*-co cm — o 0*T— otom co n m r*m* moco -JrMO m*— --om omin 

*jco --co* mm •) mr*cM -J1--0 m*o *or* *^m i*.om com-- or*o otMco ^-m* <*»o-5 mmcM 

— --cm — m cm*t cm-* mm m* mr- -*to -»co— mo»— mo —•*•-• <-<*<m 

coo* * — cm -j — co cm cm 4 om-- comr* **jm m>no mm* — <ocm or*co r*r*-a mcoo mot* 

*tr* — com n cm cm m*o -»Oeo -»-jm mcom *cm© i*.*co coo* to Jn Oco— OfMO — * * 

— — cm —m CMm cm-» cmia m* m* ^r* *too ^o-- u >o--ino 

r*r*o mm—- CMmcM o*--m r. co n m**r cM-jm ocm* r*or* mr*r* n 1/1 co ©mo too© 

mr* --r*<7 cm—--- mmco m co m 4 cm cm ^o *g o^ *o* *mco r*r*o co--r* om<j oo*m 

*<»m moo o-»* r*o— <j-a* — o cm eomr- ineor-i cMmco otom *mco mco*t 

m* — * m (moo (Mm* mr*(M -too -»-jm mr-cM * — eo *^m c*co— ©-co 

*cmo tMmo omo mr-o ^^ ^ O* to--o -Jmo --mo r*r*o (no*to O--© 

mm — * — r- o r* cMfMm mmo mom -tcm— mm* m©m * — o* r-mm 

■OO-J --©© r*r*m m*r- eom(M j J i ©m-- *CMin cm — O ©©-T 

tMm — m © — © * cm — — cM-jr* n mm -jo© <tmm m*o mo-» 

m*o oc^© m©r* o*T* *om — * -j * cm m — o cm r-m-< 

cm^- —.mo — r* *T (moo cMm-» mmo> m©<i -tfoo ^m-ff 

^■mm o*r* moo ©cm-j m*r* r^ ^ -^ cncm-4- r*m« 

cm.* -r©— *m— or-(M — — cMm*m*omco*J 

-To© ©o* cmo*» * — cm o — O *T — © co (M« 

(Mm -Tr~ — * — — © m cmoo cm cm cm cm^^ 

mr-cg *-rm ocm© moo r-r-m o-t* 

•-•cm m* «--mo --*m —<©* cmoo 

m-sr* 11 j. 4 ©mcM — . co co -TtM* 

— cm (Mm -j eo — mo — r-m 

cmcm— ^mm *^m o*r* 

— cm cm-t m* "J© 

iMo*mr*fMin*o 



120 



m .» to — . o 00 «*i o» m — co a> q wi "N m ©s nr> o m 

.» m »o m o>* p- oo mo m — com o m pn no .5 m f- © 

.j- m ine> r-m o«m --co pj -a -J — so r- o» m QO — s© 

»j m *o .» CO sO O 00 m O- m — p- m o- «* — -O -Sen »0 f> 

pg cm pi h ■* m *no> so m r* — co so o> cn ~- co csi ^ mo* 

-3- m ,o -5 <u -c or- p-i » -3f« so cn <o •* — m m p. m co 

— O — -o — ** c >c pj — in p- pi M m r- m (N vt co ■* m 

.» pi so -tf so or- fN CT- •*© * N lO m O m p-i no .} «) 

e>- o- o* -s <oo> co -J a) co p- m r- oo O n -or- ion m ^> 

m pj m ,j r— in 0s r— --co mo m ^4 p— m o^^ — -o n i^ 

■n co r- pj so r- -» — pi >fl n o- — m of- ooj eo<o r— o 

pi pj ui •§ r-m or- — oo na m — i— pj eo-j o m n s 

vo r- «» — pi vi -co o in t- m mo- n m oi « Op to m 

PI IN l(S»J I— m CT-vO O sO N * -* O SO IN COP! O m — k0 

m so iMe" o*n r-m in » r-i — o m r- «> -I »-• pj «» (o -o 

pi in trtpi r-m co -O Of- pj O- pio in — r- pi Out on 

pi m qod p-O nw o m r- to •» o p pi r-iri -a to O © 

m pj mm «r^ eo *3 O >- --co no in-- son « n o m 

pj -cf co -o -3-ep oo -e cm N-* co >o ■» a- oo <oin cm «» 

m in -cr m ,c> <r co ^c o- r— --co n c* ^ o so cm p— pi o- *cr 

O m -O -» — so so p- — o- p-O cm — r-m pj -j p. ms m r- 

n IN J PI MS -J I— i/! QN -O ©CO IN O- PIO m — sO IN COP! 

O pj <J m oo-* Pl-S r-m in so \0 p- --co int> oo •» — 

in im -»pi m .J r-m oo\C oi- --co mo- -»o « in r-m 

r- — — — m — cr> cm m pj r- cm om -»pi com pi.* so-« 

pjcn -jm u-i<j .oui eo-O cj>f- -co pjo* mo "I— « n 

cnpn n in mm .i: -^,' r— m o- --c Of— --oo mo^ ^ro in h 

u^co r-oo i^t- iNsO ^-yo so"! o^»* --m mm >o(n co — • 

pj— miN ^m <c & f-u! conO err- —oo ino"> mo 3« 

mr- trt -a r-m «d>* qp-i ---- n o >n n \or— to -o o- ft 

in-- mtN -»m m <t i—lpi co*o o>i- Oi~~ --io cnct- mo 

<n«o mm Jm J— /ia -or- r-m eo^- c>p-i OO —eo 

P4-- p>ps) ^p! iri^ o-j r-u"> o>o or- Oco nit mo 

om om — o — co — \D —m — -- —en in«o (n»» ini — 

in— piw ^m mm vO«» f-m »o omO Of- — co ino 

e>>» oo— mco r-m p-cn soq sop- m-j -*— •& to mm 

— •-« cmin miN ^m m^ -oiS r-m «so c-r- or- — oo 

i—m -oo I" so -jm psio- --m o n 000 r— m -ocn meo 

— — n n n n -jm mm -o-J r-m r-m eo-O or- or* 

vofsi >*co r-i^- 00 cosp so n -*« pj^ 00 eo-o 

— — pj— PiiM ^m -»m m.y ~o ^ r-m »so oonO 

-j— im -o o> in •or- -3P! --eo »-» 1/10 mf* 

pio om ^o mm » sT so-* imit O'n* 

— — m— in n misi mpj ^. m mm m-s 

cno r-m mr- o-pj m<o --o r-m 

— — — in— incm mcsi -*m >*m 

oco m»- om mo* om sOf- 

m-o mo r-pi N so -oo 



121 



APPENDIX IV - 4 

1. General remarks and explanatory material pertinent to a two-day 
ground check, December 10-11, 1973. 

2. Livestock operations ground checked, February 20-21, 1974 

3. Telephone calls regarding identification of agricultural units. 



This material written by Mr L. E. Philpotts, Economics Branch, Agriculture 
Canada, Ottawa 



122 



1. General Remarks pertinent to a Two-Day Ground Check Carried out by the 
Aerial Photo Interpreters, in Southwestern Ontario, December 10-11, 1973. 

A two-day trip was made to carry out ground checks mainly to 
varify work performed in Ottawa by the four aerial photo interpreters, 
and also to view typical farms .** 

All of the farms involved were found in the general vicinities 
of Guelph, Woodstock, Preston and Burfood. Two cars were used. On the 
first day all personnel visited selected livestock operations while 
on the second day two parties travelled in previously outlined areas 
relevant to the interpretations previously done in Ottawa. Six farms 
in the vicinity of Guelph and 40 farms in the remaining areas were 
visited and on most of these the interpreters were able to interview 
the farmers and to view the farmsteads in a general manner. The period 
of time allotted to the survey restricted the amount of time available 
for each farm. In addition to the visited farms, about 120 farms were 
viewed from the automobiles, travelling at a slowpace along the public 
roads or on farm lanes. Reasonable identification of active livestock 
operations in this Unit could be made and noted on either photographs 
or 1:50,000 scaled topographic maps. 

Among the enlightenments of the interpreters during the survey 
the most profound one was, perhaps, that which indicated that the original 
basis for the calculation of space previously allotted for the individual 
livestock was more than sufficient. One progressive producer, for 
instance, operating a dairy (loose stall) enterprise stated emphatically 

* Summary provided by Mr L. E. Philpotts 

** Farms visited selected by Mr Martin Wrubleski, Ontario Ministry of 
Agriculture and Food, University of Guelph, Guelph, Ontario. 



123 



that he was housing more animals than originally intended for the size 
of the building (as he said, "While one cow ate, a friend relaxed in the 
stall away from the manure and the maddening crowd"). The same type of 
situation relevant to increased numbers within an individual barn was 
apparent for many steer and mixed beef farms and for anumber of farms 
where hogs were being produced. Many of the conventional barns formerly 
used for dairy purposes were involved with hog production or mixed beef 
or steer production or for combinations of these. Some of the new 
ancillary structures associated with the conventional barns such as hog 
feeders and new types of silo were installed as late as six months prior 
to the ground check. It was possible, however, to identify most of the 
feeders especially those relative to hog production, and newer types of 
silo from the photography taken in 1972 (Table AS indicates that the 
total number of cattle for beef purposes, and for hogs of an age of 6 
months and over increased from 1971 to 1972 in three areas of interest 
in Ontario. It shows also that the total number of hogs decreased from 
1972 to 1973 while on the other hand the total number of cattle for both 
milk and beef purposes increased) . It was also found that a number of 
barns used for dairy purposes contained milk house facilities inside the 
barns unlike the typical milk houses usually attached to or near the 
main barns. The dairy farms where the milk house facilities were within 
the barns were generally associated with milk for manufacture purposes. 

As mentioned above the aerial photography used for the interpretations 
was taken in the summer of 1972 while the ground checks were made about 
1.5 years later, and as might be expected, changes were found according 
to farm type and farm practice. Based on the photography of 1972, the 
two ground checks revealed that the interpretations were reasonably 
accurate. This early ground check clarified numerous points and served 
as a basis upon which to built a firm interpretation system. 



124 



T3 •> VI 

c n <a 

rt f-< in 

cu o 

2 -H iH h 

O CD .H 3 

u X s a. 



HONfO 


CM v£) CN o 


to 00 


rt 00 ^t \0 


■*t h- ** ^o 


«* r-. 



O vO M ■* 
h- rO rH (M 
oo H (N rsi 



i-H rH tO 



M (N (N \D 

v£> ■* (^ r-* 



\o cm r-. io 

CM ^ CO LO 
CO O r-i O 



i-H r-H Tt 



O i-H t"» CO 

K) ^O i-H O 

i-t cm t-H in 



r- oo -3- en 

vD ifl N O 
H tO LO 



a^ ^c cn cm 
*£> i-H r- \o 
nohoi 



i-H r-H tO 



LD tO O CO 

(N \D (N O 
H (N H l/l 



WHO\D 

a> r-» co ^f 

r-H to ^o 



c </> o 








aJ fn t/i 








<D O 








miH(w a 


to co to ^t 


i-H a» a> r-- 


\o r- 


S -H <D h 


** i-h to ch 


LO CJ tO r-H 


lO ^J" 


o cj o 3 


i-H IO i-H LO 


l-H tO r-H \0 


.-H to 


U X cq a. 









OK1NO 

CM tO r-t \0 



N!N N O 



tO H tO N 
O Ol "t to 
CM CM i-H \Q 



>C tON vO 



i-H LO ^O CM 
O CTi Tt *fr 

(N M H vO 



\D to r-- vo 



c 


c 


o 




g 


O 
C .-1 H 


<D 


u 


rt 1 


1 


<u 


-C 


<a 


h J3 




J= 


a> u ^ 


•P 


■p 


P 3 


CN 


4-» 


+-> -p 3 


3 


w 


C c/5 


r-. 


3 


w c w 


O 


o 


CD 


o% 


o 


CD CD 


w 


3 


u 


«■* 


1/5 


3: CJ 







,_, 


3 






CD 


O 






*-> 


O 


C 




a 




R 


c 


^ f- 


o 


CD 


f-l 


m i 


z 


,C 


CD 


U .O 




4-> 


*-> 


P 3 




3 


tfl 


C c/D 




O 


CD 


CD 


n) 


C/i 


2 


U 


^-* 



125 



Guelph Area Farms Selected by Mr. Martin Wrubleski (Visited Dec. 10, 1973) 

# 1 - Hogs, sows and weeners fed out 

Building, 36 ft X 228 ft = 8,208 sq. ft. 

1,000 hogs 

8,208 sq. ft. /I, 000 hogs = 8 sq. ft. /hog 

The owner, who is also a veterinarian, stated that he is preparing 

for about 12 sq. ft. /hog. He said further that 15 sq. ft. seemed 

to be a reasonable unit area as calculated by the visiting party 

for the present barn. 

# 2 - Dairy 

Building (stall or stanchion) 72 ft. X 48 ft. = 4,176 sq . ft. 

3 rows X 12 cows = 36 cows 

24 calves were penned adjacent to one side of the barn 

(how does one calculate for the 24 calves?) 

Building (for replacement animals) 

22 ft. X 48 ft. = 1,056 sq. ft. 

15 heifers or replacement cattle 

1,056 sq. ft./15 animals = 70 sq. ft. /animal 

# 3 - Dairy 

Building (loose housing) 

66 ft. X 150 ft. = 1,900 sq. ft. 

400 steers 

1,900 sq. ft./400 steers = 25 sq. ft. /steer 



126 



# 6 - Beef (mixed) and hogs 

Building, 71 ft. X 64 ft. = 4,545 sq. ft. 

61 cattle 

4,545 sq. ft./61 cattle = 75 sq. ft. /animal 

Building, 30 ft. X 60 ft. = 1,800 sq. ft. 

18 sows and 126 weeners (an average of 7/litter was noted) 

1,800 sq. ft./144 hogs = 12 sq. ft. /hog 

Description of Three Farms Indicating the Typical Housing Space Per 
Animal or Bird in the Woodstock - Preston - Burford Area 

#15 - Steers 

Building (loose housing) - 17,538 sq. ft. 
800 steers (maximum as indicated by producer) 
17,538 sq. ft./800 steers = 22 sq. ft. /steer 

It 25 - Hogs, feeders 

Building, 7,070 sq. ft. 

800 feeders (maximum as indicated by producer) 

7,070 sq. ft./800 hogs = 8.8 sq. ft. /hog 

#35 - Poultry, broilers 

Buildings - 49,200 sq. ft. 

81,500 birds 

49,200 sq. ft./81,500 birds = 0.6 sq. ft. /bird 



127 



2. Farms Ground Checked in the Thamesville - Rodney - Strathburn Area, and 
Sarnia Area, February 20-21, 1974 1/ 

The interpreters indicated that ground checks were needed for certain 
farms situated in the general environments indicated above in order to 
maintain confidence of interpretation. Many of the farms were interpreted 
as being typical while other farms raised conjectural aspects as to type 
and condition. Some of the farms of the latter category were, for instance, 
associated with buildings about which the interpreters were undecided as 
to the identity of poultry or as to the identity of buildings housing 
either poultry or hogs (it was found in the earlier ground check survey 
that poultry barns had been altered for theuseof hog production). The 
ground check data did not include the size of buildings because this type 
of information was more readily available from measurements made on the 
photography by the interpreters. It simply remained for the interpreters 
to calculate the space per individual livestock and to adjust for other 
interpretive implications. 

As the aerial photography was taken a year or so previous to the 
ground check, the interpreters, were not able, of course, to identify 
most recent changes of farm practice on some of the farms. The interpretation, 
made relative to the date of photography and having the inherency of gained 
experience as the study progressed, were found to be well within the 
reasonable level of accuracy according to the type of farm and to other 
phenomena (population, manure, land use and activity patterns) . 



\j Feasibly carried out in combination with other agricultural work. 
Summary provided by Mr L. E. Philpotts, Economics Branch. 



128 



Identity 
of farm 



February 1974 Field Check 



Original 
Interpretation 



160,000 turkeys, fed 75% corn and 
concentrates - manure, semi solid 
mixed with wood shavings 

1,000 hogs, feeders - new barns 
since aerial photography was 
taken in 1972 



150,000 poultry assumed 
to be turkeys 



450 hogs integrated 
total 



500 hogs (100 sows and 400 fed out) 

100 steers, fed corn silage 
1,000 poultry, layers 



480 hogs integrated 

mixed unit, number 
questioned 



150 steers 

30,000 pullets 

280 hogs (30 sows and 250 fed out) 
Had 100 steers in 1972, but, none 
in 1973 



160 steers 

mixed operation 
number questioned 



780 hogs (80 sows and 700 fed out) 

600 hogs, feeders, fed 75% corn and 

concentrates 

100 steers, fed corn silage 

200 hogs, feeders, fed 60% corn and 

concentrate 

85 steers, fed 75% hammered corn 



800 hogs integrated 

600 feeder hogs 
medium sized steer 
operation 

280 hogs 



145 steer and heifer calves, feeders 
2,000 poultry, layers 
Had 15,000 layers in 1972 



15,000 poultry layers 
100 confined feeding 
operation - small 
(veal) 



Poultry, layers 

Building may contains from 24,000 to 

30,000 birds 

20,000 poultry, layers, fed 100% corn 
Liquid manure spread from mobile 
tank - volunteered the information 
that the odor of the spread manure 
lasts only one day 



35,000 poultry 



22,000 poultry 
(layers) 



129 



Identity 
of farm 



February 1974 Field Check 



Original 
Interpretation 



200 steers 

834 hogs (48 sows and 200 weeners in 
"H" type farrowing barn with 36 sows 
in centre section, and 550 fed out in 
other typical barns). 

700 steers and heifer calves, feeders 
New owner of farm since 1972. Hogs 
in 1972 but the number of hogs was 
not known by new operator. 

2,080 hogs (80 sows and 2,000 fed out) 
Disorderly farmstead. The farmer had 
been involved with or had tried various 
practices and livestock types. 

Auction Market established for the sale 
of cattle and hogs. Solid manure 
spread in fields adjacent to buildings. 

100 cows, dairy, fed corn silage. 
Spotty pattern of cornfield in 1972 
was due to touch of frost and too 
much Atrazine sprayed at the same 
period of time. The farmer stated 
that the yield for this field was 
well below the normal one. 



180 steers 

1,250 hogs integrated 
total 



450 hogs integrated 



2,000 hogs taken as 
integrated total 
170 steers 



Auction market 400 
steer/beef/hog total 
hold 

80 milkers 



30,000 turkeys, fed mostly corn and 
some concentrates. Manure, solid 
mixed with wood shavings. 



28,000 poultry 
(assume turkeys) 



130 



3. Telephone Calls to Agricultural Representatives: 

The county agricultural representatives are able, generally, to 
give immediate identification concerning unusual types of farms or other 
agricultural establishmentsproviding such enterprises have geographic 
locations which can be readily described in telephone conversation. 

Eight telephone calls were made to various agricultural repre- 
sentatives and about 20 farms or other agricultural enterprises were 
generally quickly identified according to type by the representatives. 
The identif iciation concerned farms or establishments which caused some 
interpretation problems because of the comparatively large size, extremely 
well kept condition in relation to others in the same region or because 
of unusual agricultural activity relevant to establishments which were 
difficult to directly identify from aerial photography. In several cases 
the buildings were not typical for the area and were located near or 
in urban areas. The farms or establishments identified by telephone 
conversations consisted generally of those pertinent to; fur farms; 
poultry farms; hog farms; livestock breeding organizations; agricultural 
businesses, such as a seed growers enterprise which had poultry cages 
adjacent to the main building; a mushroom industry which had regular 
shaped and positioned humus piles near the main building; stables, 
paddocks and exercise areas; and, other types of farm where the buildings 
were differently shaped and situated in comparison to the typical ones 
within the particular region. 



131 



Appendix IV- 5 

Sample of printout for airphoto livestock inventory of 
southern Ontario, 1973-74. 

(Complete printout under separate cover) 



NOTE: Abbreviations - Housing - OUT FEED - covered with outside 

feeders in yard 

- OUT RNGE - covered with open 

range or fields 

- COVERED - covered with inside 

feeders 

- Manure - SOL, - manure with bedding mixed 

in to form material handled 
as a solid 

- S/S - semi-solid material with little 

bedding such as from freestall 
barns 

- LIQU - liquid or slurry material in 

a form suitable for pumping 



132 






n 



3 



I 



i 

LU 



u. 1 uj < 

Zi X. . 
~ UJ I 



rvj fu o — f* 

cr> O" !*■ to r— 

: c — ■ -• o o 






IV — 

m cc 
o © 

CO^N=JSr-NN 



Ul 3 IT K 

© e> © c 

— * -- o o © © 



f\l 


r- 


LP CO *) 


o 


o 


r*- o 


m 


•-• 


*\j — nj 


i*o 


^» 


-* f\i 


Kl 


i^i 


ki m ro 


Kl 


rO 


r*\> m 


C 


•3 


3 3 3 


3 


3 


3 3 


•i> 


rv/ 


■c ru <fi 


<o 


nj 


ru ry 


X 


h- 


x> r- x 


*c 


r*- 


i»- r*- 



o o o o 



r^ r- p- r^ 



© 3 — t—.f^lP'-'Kl — 3 *-* © 17 3 0«~« 3' 

h- n r- IP a N C N (J- OD (T CO t* 1 N f (O ff 1 . 

© -* — o — © © o <— o o- o »• •-* — o — 

ccNac^ctnain^^^ino co~3 3 3| 
r» f*- r*» j r- ec to 

rvjf\ir\jnjr\j«-4«-«—<\.' ^^-HiyfM^wfM' 

33333333333:33:3:3331 

■o«c-omnjftjf\jfyf\jMrvifvjfu^^>^ r.)? 
x* x> xi^,. h »-t*.^r-r--r*-r-r'»p»x» o^n' 



l-£l(0ff , (O^^(OC0irff , 0'O'N0 , ^0'ttia)(0(0a)t0C0<D<DC0N»0'0CO 



a a i a Q. 
i o © o o o > 
,33333 



Q- 0. 

o o 

3 3 



a a. a a. 

© © o © 

!» « ?I 9 



aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa 
ooooooooooooooooo 



i I 



■fllM^lP* 



<-» <\> ru ruro rvjnjruajiMnjojajnjfVi ^ru ru i\i |ru <\j ~< -« 



C X OO CO CO 
r* r»- r- I~- r-~ 



CO CO 
in m 



1 0>0CCC0CCC0XC0C0^(C^C0'C <OC0(C.>OCD<D9 k Q k a0 

i/iini/nniniririnifiirinirinininir m;\o it in ^ ji t/>. 



WHH««XHKK«^W«WKH«^«W.VWK«:W.VN^NJ<| 



^ in in lo in 
iiiii 

J"» o o o o 



CO CO CO CO CO 
V. "S. >v >s. \ 

CO to CO <0 CO 

O O O O UJ 

'jj iu uj u: u 

■jJ Li-1 UJ LU 2" 
li_ u_ u_ Lu i 



in in 
i. I 
o o 

i 

( . 

CO .J 

\ o 

CO CO 

f 

UJ UJ 



o o o c o 



» — » — ♦— J " — ►— • — * — i 



-* m in in i> in in 
i i i i i i • 

in o o o i> o o 



j to to to toco ■ 

O V. v N. V -v I 

to CO CO CO to to I 

c c a c o o o 

UJ UJ aj UJ UJ UJ Ui 

li i '^lj La, LtJ UJ UJ uj 

u. a. 






o o o o c£ o o 



in in -* in 
i i i i : 

o o m o, 



co to o c 

V. >v •-< I-. 

CO to _! _J 

O Q 
U.JJCC 

ijj < .!_: L!_ J_ 

u_ u_ a or 

UJ U. 

»—►-:>> 
3 ^ o o 
o a *_> lj 



in*-* — in"-»Ln:^-inininm' 
iiiiiiiiiii 

otninomoltnoo o o ( 



Z3 ■ 

COO CO JCO J 

>v »-i v o "v a 

CO _J CO CO CO CO 



_i cr cj to 

■ O -* t-* V 
CO _J _3 '.0 



o c 

ocaocQCDccydj! 
aj uj ujuj ujujuj oj uj auJUJi 

isijaaiactattii 

uJUJijJUJUJUU.''>1iUJUJ 

>■>>>>>>>> >»-»-! 
o o c c c o c c: ^ -• - ^1 

uuuuuuuuuucci 



o o o o ol 
o o o c = 



o c- o o 



o o 



o ! o o o o o o 1 ^ o o o oo 
ocooooooooocoeococ'oooc-c-iio 
C3oooo-^rr-ooocoooooojo0'0oo<\i:'0r\ioooo 

IfiLn^lOinfU^J^^I/l^li/llOi/lifliJ/l'JIil/l /IJ1 i/l 3!'t Jl J^ Jl IT i/1 



A A A A 



I 

AAAA-AAAAAAJA 



AAA 



A A A AJ 



© o © e 

3 x r^ t\i 

r^3 IP Nr^. K13 N 



mm— x> ximmooinoicojiom-©©© j^— ©o 

-Jr*rv©r-r^ru-ccr^r^ccim'oy^ x m -* o 

X' 3 X- r\f © •"* f\j(\jf^f\i(V«C-Ki-3 XIV 



-I- - 



cco'c oo©x©-co©©cc;'©©oe o c. c ©©cc© 

©OOCC'O© C OfV C C KlOOOCr^OO-C OC.:Zr C OCT ©w 

j^ j"> in m m- -* m — m i m mm mi m m rv .*o ^- m m> m m 



A A A A A 



A A 



I 



AAA 



-i - 



©©©©©ocoy^aj©©©©©©— io©©c©r'-rm- ~m 
=?3X'Xcc©mmanjcoroc © •-! ^ =r m © x rr mo'V— © 

*Or^l3XXfV©K % C=> I - t- l\| \' ^. J C C 

m m __ m m 



A A 



A A 



xo- © ^-t-J©f\jcr-m7-;— ^«-«xmm'r*© ©©i*>c- 

> c^-O'p, >a«-o , Nj-,Mcr fc X r*- *\. . c- m m © «-» m; © r*« x* 3 

\i "\i M ■: \' - h (\j k> x yi ro .\ (\j rv ^i o r\j-o^--^ir- cm ^ cm 



1 

3 

I 



=3 3 
'IXJC 

CO 

a. 
© 

3 



IP U" 1 






2 2 

at x 






IT I 



-4 



d 

c/l 



t— .r f t- uj 



uj ~o co i/: 

J- x a .i , 



t/> to cj7 to cr '-0 ro trj X 



-o; - f j u) lo i/j rt rt o c/> to -0 a 

I;. ; 



.1 i i. 1 A 






r 



I 

I 

I 
I 
I 



I 
f*" o o- 

c. o, o 

c IP J\ 



Jo* x co 



=J -7 ^T 



x-00- X'O — rvj-o -* r*- x> oocoKv:=rtnLPx 

i tn x ec o- cr ox xr-^r- t ip mo a- ^ cro- 

— • O — . _ _ — ■_.— _» O © © O O © © ^* © 

=J -O ^1 =j =j ^r~^ d =r tp =* -j^ x ,^ c !■=» in 

I I H 

o — « o o o c co » © a x>—o-<dooO'oo 

M i\i .-v r\; rv ?v(v rv — -* — — r\i -* rv ru ~-nj nj. 

"Jrvjojrvjfvjrurorvj ru <\j r\j *\J *v *\j "ufMfMXAjrunjru 



133 



! 

N CO ; t^ IT fl •-• O -* O — O- C O 1 O X © © X O O *\J '■«-■ 

r»f^oor-f*-r-o s ac><j'0 , aL , ccx'CC cr r~ X X X x o 0" ■X 

iOOOOOO**0*-*00«~****.«*-*000*4G w .— O 



' c* 



ry : 



| 



I 



I ! ! 

O* o IcT* oxxoxoooooooooxoxooo 
„-*,-.- * »^ _« ru — t(v^-»-»f\irvjr\;r\j--.--««-^nj--'r\jru-- » 

; I ! 

A»rviAjfVi«M«\ji\jf\jr\jojr>j(\jf\if\jr\jf\jrvif\jr\irvir\jr\(rM 



I 
I 
I 
I 

I 
l 
I 
I 
I 



XXaotoxxxx r eo oo « <C cc t) co « O « * (O <t ■ 



0. CX a. 
o o o 

=* =T =3 



a o. q. a a xaxCLo-a>a-Q-Q.Q»Q.Q-ia.Q_ 
ooooo oooooooooooo.-oo 
9 ^ ^ 3 sj ^ =r =» ^ *» ^ =r =» =» =» =y a- ^r ^ 



r-f^.f^.r>^r^r ,,, ^r^r^'p«-' N "^*' Sw i*- ^ t** r*» i 



XXX cOcOcGCOXiiC*4COa>cOiC C0c0i0<0i0c0c0(04} 

Q.CLO.o.cLQ.Q.(iaiia Q.o.iQ.a.a.o.Q.Q.afl.11 
©oooooooooococ ooooooooo 



1 PTT1 ! 



Irv ru »m 

o o o _ . . . 

ftj r\i ; r\i r\j ry r\i ry r\j r\j <\j <\j 



f^ r*» X X X X X X C> -* <*VJ 3" X f\J <Vj X r*> X X 
OOOOO O IP O ~* © <=> — «OOX-4©;-*«— 



ru rw r\j ru r\j 



x x ■ ■ X 
t^ r^ f- 
»p tp lp 



© O 

U"> -* -. 

I I; I 

O tP.iP 



X X X X X x I <0 © "O ^ XXXXXXXX 
r — ^ r^. r— . r-— r^- *■— f-». p-. r*~ r*~ t-- r^ f^ **- r^ i-"- t-» .j*» p-- 

LP- IP IP iP IP / i/' l/\ IT IP f _P IP LP iP IP IP .IP IP i 



t 



*t *« m x ;x ^c 

o o o o I 

— J-. — — — I 

■ I I • 

A O !p IP A _ t 

I 



,* X J* ** *« 

o o c 

I I I I I 



O O 



I 

LP A 



IP LP 
I I 
O O 



o I o 

LP <-• ! 



I 



O OjO 
CO (/}« 

'til UJ'uJ 



o o 



I 
I 
I 
I 



o c c o o o 

co co to co co co 

UJ UJ UJ UJ UJ lJ_ 

Ci> CJ5 LS CJ3 ^D 'J 

2 Z 2 Z 2 .Z 

a: a: a. a a: s: 



rs o 3 o d r> 
o c a o c. o 



c c a o c 

CO CO CO CO CO 

UJ UJ UJ O UJ 

CJ C> ^ Cx> CT 

x or x u. i 



i -I _i 
c o 

CO CO 

c o 

uJ UJ 
i UJ UJ 

u. u. 



CO _1 

^ o 

CO CO 



I I 



CO _1 _1 
C CD 
co I CO CO 



o a i 

UJ UJ I 



— =; o z> rs 
o o o c- c 



o c o o 

O O O CJ 



ooooooc^^^oocc^o 



ooooo 
o 



;j-i o 
|r- j-iio 



z: uj . 
a a: I 

UJ 

t— >■ ! 



ocTooou^ooooo ^ J 1 Jl ooooo 
U1'*-COOf\J'J"*tjnU" > OJ" Cf^f\.OrOOOLT 
^ X3 3— N'l-^:j-C-r\--C'(\JO!^;K!u*M : 3:T i 



o o 

'o 1^1 



oooooo-ooooo ooooco 



lt» o 

_r- o 



I 
I 

I 
I 
t 



nj ^ x 



x- r- a- 

3 — ■ 



ccooo ooooo 
ooolpj". zjoc-^u^; 



o o o o ;o o 
.O O LP :© C 
•y 3 tv !f\i y. 



o o 

o c : 



iP o 



■3 1 *\j »^> ^r -P tP _T' o o o r* sC c 'o 

MVaa-w^r-r^cr- x x o — rv ^ !.-o 

- \ ru ry 



< < 



ft t a: r "£ :r 



■i- '-i- ^ j. U. a' ^ i/j 



x - Lxaoaaa-r^o; 



nj ^ a ru mi m r»- 
o o *^ o o o -* 



X x x *o -O X X 
f~- {•*- i— r-^ r- r- e~- 
IP tP IP IP \T> IP (P 



o o o o ,o o o 



II' till 

IP un ■ A IP LP un lO 



CJ* \Q Z3 O* X 1 X -C X 

»* :o -cwoooo 

ru/uryAj 



r 



x -o r\ix X <o-o<o 
r*-r*.or^-h^r*r^p^ 

IPlPlPiPlPiPlPiP 



O.I I ooooo 

;i i i i 

All I Lit A A t/VA 



■c^aM>^o >o«> 

OO-i^— ' O Q ■-* 



■O^OXXX o ■£> X 
iPiPlPLPJIlPJ^iP 



OOOOO o 

(/l^t^^^^LP^ 
I I I I I ' II 



I 



o o.c ocoooo 

WW,(/)(OCQ(OC0WC0 



I _J _l _J _J -J 

I o o o c o 

I CO CO CO CO CO 



UioJjJt-iJaJUJUjljjLiJ I UJ U 1 UJ H'iI 

L5LD:C5 0CJOOCTL5 I 15 O O L" 'J 

■Z. ~Z \"Z "Z "2. Z "Z ZL \Z I ^ Z Z ? Z 

,qc rx (^ a a: a: n: o: fj: I a a ar a: iCt 

I ■ 

t— t— .V— I — t— H-V- »— 1— I I— t— I— ►— '*- 

pDDOQrDDD I ^) Z> O O p 

oo|oooaooc; iacc — c 



r t i i ! i i i 

COOOC030 
COCOtOtOtOCOCOCO 

i 

C O UJ LU Uu O UJ 
Uu JJ o ;j> C5 UJ C5 O 
U_' LLJ ^' Z Z LiJ /i UJ 

a.a.aziLiU;rj; 



■ U 






"O o fo o o o 

I o |o 

; x-oa 



I 



,000000 



I 



o o o o o c 



OCSCOOOOLJ 



c: o o 



J"> J"l ilP © P o C OOOOO O © iO P 'J". O LP j~. ',p c ^ 

r^r-;r , »-vPr»-iPoc;x; ^ocoir' , ^r«-or^r-'v- o 



irvr rv ru ^ ro 



i «\j ■*- »p i© r\, oj x* f* *-• i;a — x 



I 
r4 o o I-p o o c o © (o © © IP © o 

~" o o Irv IP I o o :o f^ S\ o 

— « ip-ro ^ ©p«-pj rooo- 



] 



cjoo.o'j^oooo 



I 

000000,0 

O C Jo O CD 

r-o ^ 'X o -o 

■•\j AJ r- fO 

I 



I - LP 



ul 

1 



in -r* o tp o o ;c 



o o c irir ifi : oo© c= 



*-? U' —^ C^J |I_ 

— ^- r- r- ic 



r«- r* r- » - iP. tp o _t, c .p © -^ 
|_ — — . ki - jn (l p c 

i | fu 



^ oo.'M ? c a ooim rj ipiri iroir ire c ■: !cc: © 
>-i \ m aj nj m ru ry ru x -i ". ^t ^ "*"',' ^ ^ ^ Tip j n-: ^- 

i i 



jK X X ,v< t 



X j< X X X 



rl v >• l>- ■»- »- >- >- v Iv 

H i. "i; i r i l"\ r i : u. j. 'x u. a 

j < -: < a 4 1-1 a. j. jj xj n 

i c_ ^ - c '— - a.' x i X x 



-4 -i